Who and under What Context Requires “Roboethics”? From Cross-Cultural Perspective on Assumptions about Robots

T is known that the concept of “robot” itself is very old. However, it is only recently that humanoid and pet-type robots have appeared as commercial products in daily life, and images of “robots” widely vary from robot-arms in factories to human-sized humanoid robots. Thus, when we consider “roboethics,” we should assume a concrete combination of robot types and issues to be considered. If we are sufficiently not careful for this problem, we may miss the essential part of the issues. For example, when we consider an unemployment problem as one of social issues, types of occupation to be issued affect types of robots to be issued (e.g., robot arms in monotonous assembly line work, or humanoid robots in nursing for the elderly). When we consider ethical problems of robotics applications in medical fields, issues on surgical robotics differ from those on robots for mental healthcare. On philosophical issues such as “human self,” to be discussed are not pet-type or vacuum robots but humanoid robots, in particular, androids. However, there are cultural differences on assumptions about robots in their design, including types and tasks, due to factors such as the degree of usage of robotics in the society, religious beliefs, and images of the robots transmitted through media When we use the word “roboethics,” we should care who requires it, what type of robot they require it, and under which social context they try to discuss, while considering these cultural differences. This paper discusses the importance of cultural issues on “roboethics.”