Bestia Sacer and Agamben's Anthropological Machine: Biomedical/Legal Taxonomies as Somatechnologies of Human and Nonhuman Animals’ Ethico-Political Relations

Sexbots

“…This claim contributes to the debate on what characteristics, such as sentience or rationality, nonhuman entities might need to gain membership of the moral circle (Gunkel, 2017;Hagendorff, 2017;Mackenzie, 2011Mackenzie, , 2009. It is an assertion that as creators, humans have a special responsibility to sentient entities who have been created by us for utilitarian purposes.…”

“…Associated questions are whether robots should be characterised as moral agents, responsible for their actions, and/or moral patients, afforded protection from the actions of others. Similar issues over the moral standing which should be afforded other sentient beings such as non-human animals have also proven controversial, with arguments favouring inclusion stressing the ability to feel pain, as opposed to those favouring exclusion which emphasise rationality and self-awareness (Calarco, 2015;Gunkel 2017;Hagendorff, 2017;Mackenzie, 2011Mackenzie, , 2009). The author argues that positions on moral standing should also be fundamentally affected by the distinction between inbuilt and constructed characteristics.…”

“…Dehumanisation scholarship allows a translation of the ethicolegal decision-making processes involved in inclusion/ exclusion and the moral circle to be translated into the mediation of mechanisms that result from human biological programming, or Darwinian buttons, and more conscious reflection. Mackenzie has combined these perspectives with the neuroscience of prejudice to consider human/non-human animal ethicopolitical relations (Mackenzie, 2011(Mackenzie, 2009. Her model will be drawn upon to explore ethicolegal aspects of human/sexbot relations.…”

“…What this means is that being a member of the human species does not automatically meant that one is included rather than excluded. This implies that non-humans, both non-human animals (Mackenzie, 2011(Mackenzie, 2009) and robots and sexbots, may become included rather than excluded. Some who do not belong to the human species, but who are perceived as humanlike, as sentient, self-aware sexbots are likely to be, may become included, but nevertheless remain vulnerable to subsequent dehumanisation and mistreatment.…”

“…This can act as a framing technology for the normalisation of instrumentalised conceptions of human and non-human entities within law, policy and the marketplace, as competing conceptions and ethical implications of salient terms such as person, thing and care are deployed (Mackenzie, 2011(Mackenzie, 2009. Dehumanisation, infrahumanisation and rehumanisation may take place through reclassification and recontextualisation.…”