Conference Agenda

Today’s robots are often viewed as technologically sophisticated tools, yet their limitations become apparent in dynamic environments such as public spaces. Despite advancements in robotics, public spaces pose persistent challenges due to their inherent unpredictability. Environmental factors like parked cars, changing weather, and varying lighting conditions, combined with diverse and unforeseeable human-robot interactions, make standardization impossible. Consequently, robots frequently require human assistance. This phenomenon is illustrated by viral videos showing people helping delivery robots stuck in the snow. Research further confirms that humans are generally willing to help robots. Additionally, robot developers have incorporated design strategies—such as vocalizing distress or adopting endearing appearances—to elicit human assistance.

This paper examines the ethical implications of such interactions, arguing that what appears to be an altruistic act does, in fact, carry deeper ethical concerns, particularly regarding deception and unpaid labor. It employs the concept of Incidentally Co-Present Persons (InCoPs) to analyze these dynamics. InCoPs are individuals who, without prior intention or preparation, encounter robots in public spaces and may be nudged into providing assistance.

The paper argues that companies might intentionally deceive InCoPs through manipulative robot design, evoking emotional responses that prompt unsolicited serving. It evaluates whether this deception is morally problematic, arguing that deception is not inherently unethical but becomes so when it causes harm. The analysis demonstrates that deceiving InCoPs to assist robots is harmful in at least one critical way: assisting robots constitutes work, as such actions generate economic value for the companies deploying these robots. This exploitation harms individuals, because they lack legal protections and waste their time and energy without compensation. It also harms society by reinforcing unequal power dynamics akin to unpaid care work. Therefore, the paper concludes, that this deception is morally problematic, as it coerces InCoPs into providing labor without their consent and without compensation. This phenomenon is further complicated by the potential for social and emotional attachments to robots, which can skew priorities in public spaces, such as favoring a malfunctioning robot over assisting a homeless individual.

In conclusion, this paper calls for further philosophical and ethical inquiry into human-robot interactions in public spaces. It proposes two potential solutions to address the outlined ethical concerns: redefining robots in public spaces as community-owned public goods or implementing reward systems to compensate individuals who assist robots. While this paper provides a foundation for analyzing the ethical challenges of helping robots, it also highlights the need for deeper investigations into the economic and political implications of these interactions.

Major neurocognitive disorders, commonly referred to as “dementia”, can be seen as a profound disruption of intimacy and its foundations – that is, as a destabilization of the relationship to oneself, to others, and to the surrounding environment. Indeed, dementia encompasses progressive, degenerative, and chronic conditions characterized by memory impairment and cognitive dysfunctions. These disorders progressively affect the individual's ability to perform daily activities, engage in social interactions, and maintain functional independence. Symptoms are frequently understood as a state of incapacity, which may also diminish the ability to form or maintain intimacy. Some authors conclude that it leads to a “loss of self” (Cohen and Eisdorfer, 2001) or “loss of personhood” (Sweeting and Gilhooly, 1997).

This paper aims to investigate how ethical practices, mediatized by technology, can help preserve intimacy and mitigate the neuropsychological impairments associated with dementia. We argue that while dementia compromises an individual’s autonomy, it does not eliminate it. Rather, the preservation of autonomy requires external support from caregivers and the environment. We reviewed the existing literature to address the following research question: What types of care should be prioritized to empower individuals with dementia and optimize their functional capacity?

To this end, we begin by examining the dominant paradigm that shapes dementia care. We characterize it as deficit-oriented due to its focus on incapacities. We then present an alternative paradigm that emphasizes what remains and persists in patients (Kitwood, 1997; Sabat, 2019), framing it as a possibility for empowerment. From this, we outline two primary ethical frameworks that underpin the paradigmatic models discussed—those centered on autonomy and vulnerability (Pelluchon, 2009)—arguing that both are still influenced by an incapacitating assumption. In response, we propose that a truly emancipatory approach should be grounded in a perspective informed by narrative ethics, which supports the subjectivity of the patient, conceptualized as an “ecology of memory”.

To achieve this, we emphasize the integration of technological tools that assist in self-expression and memory preservation, even when cognitive impairments limit a person's ability to narrate their own story. These technologies, acting as memory prosthetics, such as digital memory aids (Hodges et al., 2006), “evocative objects” (Heersmink, 2022), and wearable devices (Buse and Twigg, 2014), alongside other emerging innovations, help patients in recalling personal experiences and reconnecting with their identity. By incorporating such technologies, we can cultivate environments that support self-continuity, fostering intimacy and autonomy while maintaining a holistic approach to dementia care.