Raul Hakli & Pekka Mäkelä (2016, 2019) make a popular assumption in machine ethics explicit by arguing that artificial agents cannot be responsible because they are designed. Designed agents, they think, are analogous to manipulated humans and therefore not meaningfully in control of their actions. Contrary to this, I argue that under all mainstream theories of responsibility, designed agents can be responsible. To do so, I identify the closest parallel discussion in the literature on responsibility and free will, which concerns (...) ‘design cases’. Design cases are theoretical examples of agents that appear to lack responsibility because they were designed, philosophers use these cases to explore the relationship between design and responsibility. This paper presents several replies to design cases from the responsibility literature and uses those replies to situate the corresponding positions on the design and responsibility of artificial agents in machine ethics. I argue that each reply can support the design of responsible agents. However, each reply also entails different levels of severity in the constraints for the design of responsible agents. I offer a brief discussion of the nature of those constraints, highlighting the challenges respective to each reply. I conclude that designing responsible agents is possible, with the caveat that the difficulty of doing so will vary according to one’s favoured reply to design cases. (shrink)

An important book for philosophers of religion and students of Buddhism. It attempts to translate... the Mādhyamika articulation of the Buddhist dharma by comparing it with the language analysis of Ludwig Wittgenstein... Chris Gudmunsen has made a persuasive case for showing overlapping philosophical concerns and claims in different cultural traditions separated by two millennia.

Abstract:Unlike previous comparisons between Nāgārjuna and the later Wittgenstein, this article denies that either philosophy intends to replace ontological pluralism with holism (see, e.g., Streng 1967, Hudson 1973, Gudmunsen 1974 and 1977, Waldo 1975 and 1978, and Katz 1981). Instead, employing a "therapeutic" reading of the Philosophical Investigations associated with the later Gordon Baker, it is proposed that Nāgārjuna and the later Wittgenstein claim that an ontology consisting of discrete particulars is pictorially indeterminate, visible under either aspect of parts (...) or a whole. What Nāgārjuna and Wittgenstein share is an understanding of contrary positions like pluralism and holism as interchangeable Gestalten rather than matters of fact. As a result, I argue that Nāgārjuna's philosophy may be understood in terms of a broader non-dualism employed as a skill-in-means (upāyakauśalya). Akin to Wittgenstein's notion of an "object of comparison" (PI §131), Nāgārjuna's chief insight amounts to a useful perspective rather than a philosophical thesis. (shrink)