Is it morally justifiable to send a robot to investigate Mars?

The sort of question you ask when you hear yourself say, "this is a great day to be a college-educated Martian," on the way to work in the morning. I'm a software engineer and I don't know much about robotics, philosophy, or space exploration. Here are my thoughts on the matter:<br><br>**We're all robots**<br><br>Ultimately, this question is important because it concerns the relationship between human beings. It's a policy question. We're all robots. We're all built by our parents, our governments, and our histories to perform certain tasks. The primary role of the human robot is to seek shelter, find food, find mates, and raise children. The primary function of the human robot is to propagate his or her own genes so that their species can survive. This is why we have the classical virtues, like "courage," "loyalty," and "purity."<br><br>In this way, the Mars Curiosity robot is simply a tool designed to perform a task (a robot in its own right). It is designed to perform certain experiments, take pictures, and send us back data. It is the human robot's duty to be a good servant of the state. Justification is a human (robot) concern.<br><br>**Human rights are based on a misleading assumption**<br><br>In 1948, the United Nations established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These thirty articles are meant to define what rights people have that should not be violated under any circumstances. But these rights are not based on the actual rights that human beings have in the world, but rather the rights that we *ought* to have. For example, torture is universal. People have always been and will always be tortured. The universal declaration is a list of things we all agree ought not to be happening, but are happening anyway. Why is that? It is because the universal declaration is based on human history. It is based on our own understanding of what is acceptable and what is not. It is not based on the intrinsic value of life or of freedom.<br><br>The same is true for the human robot designed to explore Mars. It is not "intrinsically" valuable. It is not intrinsically "right" or "wrong" to send it to Mars. Rather, it is justifiable because we ought to want to explore space. We ought to want to learn more about the universe and about our own existence in a way that is not fundamentally connected to the value of human life. It is a matter of public policy, not of philosophy. Would we send a human to Mars? No, we would not. They would likely go insane. They would face unimaginable risks. But it is justifiable to send a robot.<br><br>**Should we send a robot to Mars?**<br><br>Even if it is justifiable to send a robot to Mars, ought we to do so? Is this the right thing to do? Well, that depends on who "we" are, doesn't it? In this case, I am a representative of the United States government, considering the plans for the Artemis mission in 2024, which will try to establish a lunar base that can be used to launch missions to Mars and beyond.<br><br>Say we do it. Say we succeed. What happens next? Where will we go? What will we do? But what if we fail? What if we lose the robot and all of its valuable data? What if we lose our investment? What if we lose the incentive to explore space? So, ought we to send a robot to Mars? I think we ought to. I think it is right to do so. It is the right thing to do. But is it justified? No, of course not. There is no such thing as "justification" in this sense. I mean, say we do send a robot to Mars. Then what? What would be the "justification" for having done so? Oh, we'd have lots of them. We can have all sorts of "justifications" for why we did what we did. But which of these justifications would be correct? Which one would be the "right" justification? I'd say, probably, none of them.<br><br>**Conclusion**<br><br>The question of whether it is morally justifiable to send a robot to investigate Mars is ultimately a question of what we ought to do. It is a policy question. It has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of robots, or the intrinsic value of space exploration. It has to do with what we want to do, what we ought to do, and what is right to do.<br><br>**Edit:**<br><br>I just wanted to add that, in my opinion, the subject of artificial intelligence and robotics is one of the most important topics in philosophy right now. I don't really blame anyone for not seeing this post. Philosophy has largely been discredited in the last century. It's often seen as a useless discipline. I think that this is unfortunate. Philosophy is not useless; it is more important than ever. Philosophy has always been about understanding the world and our place in it. I'm sure that ancient Greeks saw philosophy as being about understanding the present moment of human history. I'm sure that medieval scholars saw philosophy as being about understanding their role in the grand drama of human existence. I'm sure that the 18th century philosophers saw philosophy as being about liberty, equality, and fraternity. Philosophers are often ahead of their time. Philosophers often see the world in a way that is not yet accessible to most other people. And the world is changing at an incredible pace right now. So, we need philosophers more than ever.