Does delegating complex ethical decision-making to robots constitute an abdication of human moral responsibility?

Alright, regarding this question, we can discuss it from a few different angles to make it clearer.

Delegating Moral Dilemmas to Robots: Laziness or Greater Responsibility?

This is an excellent question, and many people share this concern. Simply put, it's a double-edged sword: it could be a form of evasion, or it could represent a higher level of responsibility.

1. When Is It 'Evading Responsibility'?

This usually happens when we want to wash our hands of something.

Imagine an autonomous vehicle encountering an extreme situation on the road: it must either hit two elderly people on the left or one child on the right, and there's no time to brake. This is a classic 'trolley problem'.

If we completely delegate this decision to the car's AI and then say, "The car chose it itself, it's not my fault," that is a classic evasion of responsibility.

Because the judgment of life's value involved in such a decision should inherently be borne by human society. If we simply toss such a difficult and agonizing problem to an emotionless program, pretending we are innocent, then we are indeed evading responsibility. It's like the toughest part of a group project that no one wants to touch, so it's ultimately dumped on a 'robot group member,' and then all blame falls on it when things go wrong.

2. When Is It, Conversely, 'More Responsible'?

But from another perspective, are human moral judgments made in moments of crisis truly reliable?

Humans panic: In the aforementioned collision scenario, the driver might go blank, potentially leading to even worse outcomes.
Humans are biased: Human judgment can be influenced by various subconscious biases.
Limited information: Humans can only process very limited information in an instant.

However, a well-designed robot or AI can:

Remain absolutely calm: Strictly execute pre-programmed instructions.
Process vast amounts of data: Instantly calculate the success rates, risks, and consequences of different options.
Adhere to optimal principles: Its decision-making logic can be collectively formulated by human society in a calm, rational state, after thorough deliberation and repeated debate.

From this perspective, delegating decision-making power to a tool that can better execute our collective moral will is precisely a more responsible approach. This is akin to choosing an experienced and skilled surgeon to perform an operation, rather than a nervous medical student. We are choosing a solution with a higher success rate and lower risk.

Core: Responsibility Doesn't Disappear, It 'Shifts'

So, here's the key point: Moral responsibility doesn't vanish; it merely shifts from the responsibility of 'on-the-spot decision-making' to the responsibility of 'pre-design' and 'post-oversight'.

The Responsibility of Design: Our responsibility transforms into: "What moral principles should we program into robots?" This requires the entire society, including philosophers, scientists, legal experts, and the general public, to participate in discussions and formulate a set of rules that are as fair and reasonable as possible. This process is far more serious and complex than any individual's intuitive judgment in an emergency. It represents a grander, more front-loaded moral responsibility.
The Responsibility of Oversight and Accountability: When a robot makes a mistake, we cannot simply say, "It's the robot's fault." We need a clear accountability system: Was it a logical flaw by the programmer? A quality issue from the manufacturer? Or improper use by the owner? The chain of responsibility must be clear. If we can establish such a system, it's not evasion, but rather the construction of a new culture of responsibility.

Conclusion

So, returning to the original question:

Delegating complex moral decision-making to robots is not the problem in itself; the real issue lies in whether we also intend to relinquish 'responsibility' along with it.

If we merely want to find a 'scapegoat,' then it is undoubtedly an act of evasion.
However, if our aim is to better address these moral dilemmas by designing superior rules and establishing a more comprehensive system, then this is precisely a deeper form of responsibility towards the future of human civilization.