Generally speaking, we don't consider it unethical to harm artificial "beings"

Generally speaking, we don't consider it unethical to harm artificial "beings"

Generally speaking, we don't consider it unethical to harm artificial "beings" such as plush toys or robots (or if we do, we consider it property damage or vandalism, not actual violence). At what point, though, would this change? Say a robot was invented that, from the outside, looked and behaved just like a person, even though it was actually a robot with advanced systems and programming. Would it be unethical to harm the robot? Where would the line be between a lifelike robot and, say, a human clone grown in a vat? When does damage to an inanimate object become violence against something capable of suffering?

Read another response by Allen Stairs
Read another response about Ethics
Print