# Robots *The Urth list — 4 messages, 4 voices, 28 Mar 2012* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *28 Mar 2012, 17:11* > David Stockhoff wrote: > Without having read the story (though I will), I want to comment that the > "moral robot" has been around at least since Asimov's "3 laws," which > basically hardwired robots to be MORE moral than humans. Naturally they > represent the kind of rational and dispassionate morality that we humans, > for a few hundred years at least, were imagined to aspire to. More to the point, the Three Laws of Robotics are designed to make Asimovian robots the perfect slaves, and thus a coded way of talking about the situation of minority persons in general and blacks in particular at a time when you couldn't openly talk about that stuff in popular fiction. (If you have any doubt about this, note how hostile humans refer to a robot as "boy.") Reading Asimov's early robot stories with this in mind opens a whole world of social commentary right there on the surface. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### David Stockhoff *28 Mar 2012, 22:20 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On 3/28/2012 1:11 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > David Stockhoff wrote: >> Without having read the story (though I will), I want to comment that the >> "moral robot" has been around at least since Asimov's "3 laws," which >> basically hardwired robots to be MORE moral than humans. Naturally they >> represent the kind of rational and dispassionate morality that we humans, >> for a few hundred years at least, were imagined to aspire to. > More to the point, the Three Laws of Robotics are designed to make > Asimovian robots the perfect slaves, and thus a coded way of talking > about the situation of minority persons in general and blacks in particular > at a time when you couldn't openly talk about that stuff in popular fiction. > (If you have any doubt about this, note how hostile humans refer to a > robot as "boy.") Reading Asimov's early robot stories with this in mind > opens a whole world of social commentary right there on the surface. Yes, the double-standard regarding murder is especially ironic in that light. I don't actually recall that use of "boy"---but then I wouldn't, would I. --- ### Allan Anderson *29 Mar 2012, 01:16 · in reply to David Stockhoff* > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: > On 3/28/2012 1:11 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> David Stockhoff wrote: >> >> Without having read the story (though I will), I want to comment that the >> "moral robot" has been around at least since Asimov's "3 laws," which >> basically hardwired robots to be MORE moral than humans. Naturally they >> represent the kind of rational and dispassionate morality that we humans, >> for a few hundred years at least, were imagined to aspire to. >> More to the point, the Three Laws of Robotics are designed to make >> Asimovian robots the perfect slaves, and thus a coded way of talking >> about the situation of minority persons in general and blacks in >> particular >> at a time when you couldn't openly talk about that stuff in popular >> fiction. >> (If you have any doubt about this, note how hostile humans refer to a >> robot as "boy.") Reading Asimov's early robot stories with this in mind >> opens a whole world of social commentary right there on the surface. > Yes, the double-standard regarding murder is especially ironic in that > light. I don't actually recall that use of "boy"---but then I wouldn't, > would I. Ah, right--I remember this from Elijah Baley in _The Caves of Steel_, before he became a stinking robo-sympathizer. Excellent points. I remember wondering if Asimov was making a coherent point with that, or just appropriating a term for its emotional impact. --- ### Jeff Wilson *29 Mar 2012, 16:05 · in reply to Allan Anderson* > On 3/28/2012 8:16 PM, Allan Anderson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 3:20 PM, David Stockhoff > wrote: > > On 3/28/2012 1:11 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > > David Stockhoff wrote: > > Without having read the story (though I will), I want to > comment that the > "moral robot" has been around at least since Asimov's "3 > laws," which > basically hardwired robots to be MORE moral than humans. > Naturally they > represent the kind of rational and dispassionate morality > that we humans, > for a few hundred years at least, were imagined to aspire to. > > More to the point, the Three Laws of Robotics are designed to make > Asimovian robots the perfect slaves, and thus a coded way of talking > about the situation of minority persons in general and blacks in > particular > at a time when you couldn't openly talk about that stuff in > popular fiction. > (If you have any doubt about this, note how hostile humans refer > to a > robot as "boy.") Reading Asimov's early robot stories with this > in mind > opens a whole world of social commentary right there on the surface. > > Yes, the double-standard regarding murder is especially ironic in > that light. I don't actually recall that use of "boy"---but then I > wouldn't, would I. > > > Ah, right--I remember this from Elijah Baley in _The Caves of Steel_, > before he became a stinking robo-sympathizer. Excellent points. I > remember wondering if Asimov was making a coherent point with that, or > just appropriating a term for its emotional impact. For purposes of scholarly research: http://nullfile.com/ebooks/%28ebook%29%20Asimov,%20Isaac%20-%20I,%20Robot.pdf ``` Jeff Wilson - jwilson at clueland.com Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL > ``` ---