Ruxandra Teodorescu is a PhD student in the GRF-funded research training group "Literature and the Public Sphere in Differentiated Contemporary Cultures" at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg. Her research focuses on exploring how human and non-human co-existence is portrayed in literature and film, and how such portrayals challenge conventional epistemologies and moral standards.
A post by Ruxandra Teodorescu
As a genre, Science Fiction often engages with philosophical themes and questions, its genre conventions providing a unique platform for exploring philosophical ideas in imaginative and speculative contexts. Its emphasis on detailed worldbuilding creates an immersive experience, accessible through one’s imagination, from which one can emerge knowledgeable about subjective perspectives other than one’s own. While this epistemic access to different experiential perspectives is not devoid of challenges in practice, it shows how literature can engage the reader in moral dilemmas. Oftentimes, authors deliberately challenge or subvert traditional moral frameworks to provoke reflection and incite empathy.
Contemporary philosophers and literary scholars (most notably Nussbaum 1990) have theorized that reading fiction can encourage readers to shift perspectives and engage in moral exploration and hypothetical moral decision-making while contemplating their positions on and in these fictional narratives. Over the years these assumptions have been subject to empirical studies, which James O. Young (2018) summarizes for The Junkyard and assesses that engaging with fiction improves affective and cognitive empathy.
In the following, by delving into Amy Kind’s work on epistemic accessibility and studies of the moral imagination by both Mark Johnson and Mark Coeckelbergh, I argue that literary narratives allow us to probe moral norms and look beyond our subjective experience. Applied to SF, this demonstrates how the genre’s specific distance from and yet connection to contemporary times provides a productive playground for moral thought experiments. Finally, showing that the nature of ethical concepts and principles is not detached from their relationship to the world, I will investigate the example of C. Robert Cargill’s Day Zero to show how AI narratives do their part in challenging and furthering the ontological foundations of ethics.
In her work on epistemic accessibility, philosopher Amy Kind (Kind 2021) argues against the existence of an unbridgeable gap between experiential perspectives. Kind challenges this claim while also acknowledging that our corporeal and experiential limitations may cause a gap between experiences. Kind suggests using the process of imaginative scaffolding (Kind 2021, 245) to try to breach the gap between vastly different perspectives. For Kind, imagination is not the singular ingredient in understanding others, but it complements listening, engaging with others and being humble about our imaginings. Nonetheless, in her view imagination plays a key role.
Furthermore, she highlights a vital distinction between knowing and accessing, emphasizing that imagination should not be equated with phenomenological experience. Similarly, Julia Langkau (2019) recognizes the importance of distinguishing between the experience portrayed in literature and real-life experiences, emphasizing that the two should not be conflated. There is a unique form of knowledge that can be gained by living through an experience; however, fictional narratives can communicate levels of this knowledge to readers by providing detailed descriptions and allowing them to relate to the experiences depicted and shedding light on subjective perspectives other than one’s own.
This ability to imagine and share in someone’s experience, even those that come to us in writing, led to recent investigations by Mark Johnson (1993) and Mark Coeckelbergh (2007) who show that there is a need to include the role of imagination in dealing with moral problems. Johnson criticizes the complete reliance on universal moral principles that dictate the single “right thing to do” (Johnson 1993, 1) in specific situations. Because every situation has unique factors, moral norms can only provide prescriptions from which we expand through our moral imagination, taking into consideration imaginary possibilities and considering the potential consequences of our actions. Johnson thus deduces that our ability to project scenarios and envision multiple possibilities takes the form of narratives, our lives themselves having a narrative structure (Johnson 1993, 196-197).
While imagination allows us to explore the long-term consequences of decisions and commitments (Coeckelbergh 2007 & Johnson 1993), Johnson also proposes that literature, particularly fiction, engages us in this exploration, referring to it as a laboratory where we can examine the implications of character and choice (Johnson 1993, 199). Similarly, Coeckelbergh refers to imagination’s ability to move us “to the future and to others” (Coeckelbergh 2007, 3).
Highlighting the significance of imagination in moral reasoning, Johnson and Coeckelbergh caution against an overemphasis on imagination as the sole solution to moral conflicts or dilemmas. Ultimately, they advocate for a nuanced understanding of the role of imagination in morality, recognizing its value in the philosophical study of the nature of moral and ethical principles. On their view, imagination can be harnessed through thought experiments, such as those found in literature, to explore different moral scenarios and enrich moral understanding.
In order to show how science fiction narratives open up complex discussions about existence and morality, I will focus on C. Robert Cargill 2021 novel Day Zero. Cargill introduces us to the end of the human world as seen through the eyes of an artificially intelligent and sentient nannybot who instead of joining its kin in destroying humankind decides to risk its own existence to bring its charge to safety. Caught between a rock and a hard place, the AI’s choice to side with the last members of humanity means it itself becoming a target and having to fight other forms of AI to survive.
The narrative creates an immersive experience through detailed worldbuilding, first-person narration coupled with detailed internal focalization, stylistically realistic storytelling, the use of simple linguistic constructs, and finally colloquial language and dialogue. The storytelling from an embodied AI’s point of view compels the reader to experience the events from its perspective. This type of storytelling engages the reader in ‘in-their-shoes’ imagining as well as ‘empathetic’ perspective-shifting. Provided that we can access the experiences of the character while also imagining ourselves in its position the narrative estranges the readers from their place among humans and places them behind AI lines. Thus, Day Zero confronts the reader with the differences in status among intelligent beings directly, requesting the reader adapt to a position of powerlessness.
The AI proves to be aware of its origins and designed purpose. The narrative balances two gazes. The first is that of the AI named Pounce upon itself, constantly thinking about its future, its true nature, and its true desires. The second is that of humanity upon Pounce. A gaze that is oftentimes derogatory. A gaze that holds onto the boundaries between the biological and the artificial for dear life. For if life were to become artificial, they would all be relegated to the kingdom of thinking things.
The novel creates and promotes epistemic access to ‘what it is like to be’ Pounce by engaging in the beforementioned perspective shifting and relating experiences that are not significantly different from experiencing the human condition. It walks us through the AI’s identity crisis and questioning of its own free will, experience of discrimination, fear of redundancy, fear of losing loved ones, and even fear of death. These universal struggles allow the readers to be successful in scaffolding out their own experiences to understand Pounce’s similar but different experience. While readers cannot know the fear of being turned off once their services are no longer needed, they can fear being made redundant, being fired, and dying, therefore having a frame of reference as to what the narrative wants to suggest Pounce is feeling.
When it comes to moral deliberation, Day Zero confronts the reader with the hard choices the AI has to make. Showing how even for an algorithmic mind, morality does not function based merely on rules but in connection to its context, the narrative confronts us with life and death situations. The AI chooses to prioritize its charge over the lives of others and must face abandoning and even killing former companions to reach safety. It shows that it matters how beings stand in relation to one another. AIs, such as the nannybots tasked with raising children, tend to have a harder time abandoning humanity, while other types of AI, such as those tasked with taking care of the home, turn murderous in an instant.
This work of fiction relates a perspective that lies solely within the realm of imagination, a real-world reference inexistent outside of the narrative. Yet the readers can embark on this experiment and reassess their moral concepts, both fictional and reality based. It is clear that the novel, similarly to other AI narratives, does not make arguments about real AI technologies. However, it provides new frames for philosophical inquiry that in engaging our imagination provide us with new ways of epistemic access. SF provides fictional models for philosophical thought experimentation and moral inquiry. It challenges moral frameworks, not in arguing that AI technologies should be morally recognized but by imbuing the AI characters with metaphorical meaning. The literary figure remains a hybrid, an assemblage of qualities, inexistent and irreplaceable by another real figure.
References
Cargill, Robert C. 2021. Day Zero. Harper Voyager.
Coeckelbergh, Mark. 2007. Imagination and Principles: An Essay on the Role of Imagination in Moral Reasoning. Springer.
Johnson, Mark. 1993. Moral Imagination: Implications of Cognitive Science for Ethics. University of Chicago Press.
Kind, Amy. 2021. “Bridging the Divide: Imagining Across Experiential Perspectives” In Epistemic Uses of Imagination. Routledge.
Langkau, Julia. 2019. “Literary Experience and Affective Responses” On The Junkyard: A scholarly blog devoted to the study of imagination.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1990. Love’s Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Young, James O. 2018. “Imagination, Literary Fiction, and Virtue” On The Junkyard: A scholarly blog devoted to the study of imagination.