IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2018 - 77

Feminist Collective which included Selma James, Mariarosa Dalla Costa, Brigitte Galtier, and Silvia Frederici.
The RAiLE, not being organically reproductive in of
itself, is not inclined towards caring unless it is programmed to be so. Yet the RAiLE easily fits the concept
of a homemaker. There are already plenty of robotic
household machines, e.g., Roombas, robotic lawn mowers, and express clothing care system like the Swash.
The RAiLE is only the next logical, more sophisticated
variation on the same theme. Like humans, the RAiLE
also has economic (and perhaps social) needs. A human
homemaker's vulnerability might even be enhanced
where the homemaker is a RAiLE. The need for maintenance and spare parts for instance, an analogue for
humans need for medical service, could lead to a potential need for legal protection from violence and (exploitation) in human-robot subordinate relationships. (On
subordinate relationships, see Goodin's four conditions
for high vulnerability [48]. See also [51], [52].)

The Universal Caregiver
RAiLE, being produced rather than "organically reproduced," are inherently outside of the binary hierarchy of a
nuclear family. However the RAiLE are gender neutral in
and if themselves, with their appearance being only a layer
and the programming, if being gendered is merely superficial coded according to "expected responses." It has no
dilemma in varying between both roles. We already have
robots capable of doing multiple chores like the Atlas
(Developed by Boston Dynamics and designed and operated by Institute for Human & Machine Cognition (IHMC).
https://www.ihmc.us/research/biologically-inspiredrobots/) and the Sanbot (Sanbot is a multipurpouse service robot developed by Qihan Technology Co Ltd, China
at http://en.sanbot.com/index.html).
Thus, the RAiLE is well suited to the Universal caregiver model. Especially in comparison to a human, as
the RAilE's energy levels are not affected by the amount
of work and housework it has to perform the way it
would affect a human. The RAiLE does not need to rest,
except perhaps some "time off" for recharging.

RAiLE as Part of the Family Unit
The RAiLE as part of a family unit raises new types of legal
challenges, depending on the role RAiLE has in the family.
As long as the RAiLE is considered a good, relevant laws
already exist. The framework is the same no matter what
type of good is dealt with. In situations where the good is
a living being, protection applicable on the good itself, or
the treatment of it, may apply, e.g., under animal welfare
laws etc. This would protect the RAiLE from unnecessary
cruelty by other family members, both deliberate and
negligent. The standard of legal protection will vary from
country to country, from basically non-existent to a high
MARCH 2018

∕

level of protection. In countries like Australia the maximum penalties include fines and jail time up to two years
(Animal Welfare Act 1992, ACT Australia and Animal Care
and Protection Act 2001, QLD Australia). In the EU, the Lisbon Treaty recognizes animals as sentient beings (Article
13 of Title II s TFEU). This means there is international legislation covering 28 countries for minimum standards of
animal welfare (European Commission Animal welfare
https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en). EU animal
welfare policies are even exported to non-EU countries
[53]. Notably, under these rules, while animals have rights
they do not have obligations. (See European Convention for
the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for
Farming Purposes).
But what if the RAiLE is more than that? Formalized
relationships, by way of (S2), isolated from ethical considerations, between RAiLE and a human, would be dealt
with on an equal legal basis. A complex situation arises
from (S3). For a "Third Existence" RAiLE, it would depend
on the scope of the civil rights given by law. For "electronic persons," the RAiLE equals goods in family context.
Drawing the line for when the RAiLE crosses over
from (S1) to (S2) might be challenging. It could be
argued that once the RAiLE is individually subject to
obligations, they have surpassed being categorized as
goods. That is to say, that if the RAiLE is deemed to
have the capacity to judge the consequence of their
own actions, it has developed a higher level of sentiency
than animals. Legally this is of major importance as a
shift from an object to a legal subject has occurred.
A byproduct of social robots replicating human traits
is the legacy of instinctually gendered archetypes [32],
[33]. Consequently, on one hand female attributes are
fabricated for machines that undertake traditionally
female jobs. On the other hand, machines assigned to do
labor historically associated as male are assigned male
attributes [9], [32]. This inherited gender stigma, is also
likely to reflect in their treatment of the RAiLE socially
and occupationally. A RAiLE's ability to generate income,
could consist of its perceived gender and social recognition, and it might be restricted to work outside the home.
Income securities earned by the RAiLE would also automatically affect the humans of the family.

Current Attempts at RAiLE Legislation
Regular, daily basis social and other human-RAiLE interactions requires suitable and relevant regulation. A ChinoJapanese proposal, founded on a Case Study on Legal
Impacts to Humanoid Robots [35] proposed a hierarchal
Robot law as an appropriate means. Establishing a legal
status named "Third Existence" [18], [19] for intelligent
robots, the legal hierarchy exists on three levels. Initiated
by rules setting central norms for regular interactions

IEEE Technology and Society Magazine

https://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/welfare_en https://www.ihmc.us/research/biologically-inspired-robots https://www.ihmc.us/research/biologically-inspired-robots http://en.sanbot.com/index.html

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - March 2018