The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Machine Question: Ethics, Alterity, and Technology
Abstract
An investigation into the assignment of moral responsibilities and rights to intelligent and autonomous machines of our own making. One of the enduring concerns of moral philosophy is deciding who or what is deserving of ethical consideration. Much recent attention has been devoted to the "animal question"—consideration of the moral status of nonhuman animals. In this book, David Gunkel takes up the "machine question": whether and to what extent intelligent and autonomous machines of our own making can be considered to have legitimate moral responsibilities and any legitimate claim to moral consideration. The machine question poses a fundamental challenge to moral thinking, questioning the traditional philosophical conceptualization of technology as a tool or instrument to be used by human agents. Gunkel begins by addressing the question of machine moral agency: whether a machine might be considered a legitimate moral agent that could be held responsible for decisions and actions. He then approaches the machine question from the other side, considering whether a machine might be a moral patient due legitimate moral consideration. Finally, Gunkel considers some recent innovations in moral philosophy and critical theory that complicate the machine question, deconstructing the binary agent–patient opposition itself. Technological advances may prompt us to wonder if the science fiction of computers and robots whose actions affect their human companions (think of HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey) could become science fact. Gunkel's argument promises to influence future considerations of ethics, ourselves, and the other entities who inhabit this world.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Cybernetics or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine
Wiener, N. (2019) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/11810.001.0001 · Cited by 5,009
Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political Thought
Carpenter, S. R., & Winner, L. (1978) · Technology and Culture · doi:10.2307/3103332 · Cited by 1,531
Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong
(2009) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-4493 · Cited by 793
Zoontologies: The Question Of The Animal
Wolfe, C. (2003) · Cited by 512
Computer Power And Human Reason: From Judgement To Calculation
Weizenbaum, J. (1991) · Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design · Cited by 403
Bioethics in the Age of New Media
Zylinska, J. (2009) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262240567.001.0001 · Cited by 177
Thinking machines: Can there be? Are we?
Winograd, T. A. (1990) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511663116.017 · Cited by 85
Cited by
Wang, B., Rau, P.-L. P., & Yuan, T. (2023) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2022.2072768 · Cited by 1,036
Kim, J., Lee, H., & Cho, Y. H. (2022) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-021-10831-6 · Cited by 669
In AI We Trust: Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, and Reliability
Ryan, M. (2020) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00228-y · Cited by 600
Yigitcanlar, T., Desouza, K., Butler, L., & Roozkhosh, F. (2020) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en13061473 · Cited by 555
Zhang, H., Lee, I., Ali, S., DiPaola, D., Cheng, Y., & Breazeal, C. (2023) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-022-00293-3 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Gunkel, D. J.
- Venue
- Series in Philosophy/Communication
- Publisher
- Purdue University Press
- Published
- 2007
- Pages
- 120-150
- ISSN
- 2768-3028 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2268802647
- Cited by
- 440
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Machine Question: Ethics, Alterity, and Technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5840/philcomm200745
- The paper
- Gunkel, D. J. (2007). The Machine Question: Ethics, Alterity, and Technology. Series in Philosophy/Communication. https://doi.org/10.5840/philcomm200745
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.