Past Imperfect: Ancient Legal Codes and Future Transbeman Law – Precedents, Problems & Paradoxes Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig Chairman, Dept. of Political Studies Bar-Ilan University, ISRAEL

The Past as Mirror of the Future High High level of social differentiation Gradual, Gradual, historical struggle for fuller rights

FRANKENSTEIN UNBOUND: Towards a Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence Futures, December 1981, pp

Legal Categories in the past for “sub-humans” Animals: Consciousness without volition Animals: Consciousness without volition Slaves: Limited autonomy Slaves: Limited autonomy (e.g. no criminal liability for the Master if no complicity in a slave doing harm ) – in Jewish, Roman & American Law. Diminished Capacity (English Common Law): Mentally Deficient Mentally Diseased Diminished Capacity (English Common Law): Mentally Deficient (e.g. retarded) or Mentally Diseased (temporarily disabled).

Legal Categories in the Past for “Sub-Humans” Minors: High Native Intelligence, Low Decision-Making Ability Minors: High Native Intelligence, Low Decision-Making Ability (grades of moral responsibility) Servant/AgentLimited CivilAutonomy Despite Full Legal Independence Servant/Agent: Limited Civil Autonomy Despite Full Legal Independence

Contemporary Trends: Spanish Draft Law (special rights for Great Apes) “evolutionary and genetic similarities between humans and great apes…” “evolutionary and genetic similarities between humans and great apes…” Prof. Peter Singer: Animal Liberation Prof. Peter Singer: Animal Liberation Great Ape Project Great Ape Project Major Precedent: 1- Basic Human Rights granted to Non-Humans 2- Top-to-bottom approach (e.g. Deep Greens) and not bottom-to-top as in the past (slave uprisings)

Contemporary Trends: Organic Computing & Kurzweil Interface Undermining “non-biological body” argument against robot rights Undermining “non-biological body” argument against robot rights Blurring the lines between organic and inorganic intelligence Blurring the lines between organic and inorganic intelligence

Conclusion: Paradox, Problem & Preferred Policy “when the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers” Conclusion: Paradox, Problem & Preferred Policy “when the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers” (Oscar Wilde, An Ideal Husband, 1893)

DANGER! various legal categories of non-human and then sub-human subjects various legal categories of non-human and then sub-human subjects principle granting special rights to Super-bemans principle granting special rights to Super-bemans Transbeman Law could well be a two- edged sword Transbeman Law could well be a two- edged sword

‘Tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his own petard’ (Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4)

2 Philosophies of Legal Development Jewish & Anglo-Saxon: Law emanates from common social practice Rome & Modern Continental Europe: Law is issued by the Ruler/Ruling Class to the masses. The Common Law Approach (#1) is the Most Appropriate for the Transbeman Phenomenon

(Hopefully NOT) The End