The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robots
El Principio de Posibilidades Alternativas: un marco de investigación ético
para las interacciones sexuales humanas con robots
Adrià Harillo Pla
University of São Paulo (UNESP), Brazil
Universidad del Estado de São Paulo (UNESP), Brasil
ISSN: 0123-5095 E-ISSN: 2389-9441
Cuestiones de Filosofía Vol. 10 - N° 34. Enero - junio. año 2024. pp. 171-190
Artículo de Investigación
Resumen
En este artículo, presento tres escenarios
relacionados con las interacciones sexuales
humanas con robots. Me acerco a ellos
considerando el desarrollo, la distribución
y el compromiso con estas tecnologías.
Estos tres escenarios muestran diferentes
niveles de avances, posibles estereotipos
y dilemas éticos, aclarando el amplio
espectro de expectativas, principios y
resultados sociales entrelazados con la
robótica sexual. Subrayando la importancia
de la toma de decisiones individuales en
este ámbito, en este artículo deendo el
Principio de Posibilidades Alternativas
(PAP) como un marco relevante para
comprender y evaluar las implicaciones
morales de estas elecciones. Debido a este
hecho, considero que el PAP es un marco
de investigación válido para la robótica
sexual, ya que respeta la diversidad de
opciones, deende la agencia moral
de los agentes sociales y aborda las
responsabilidades éticas inherentes a
los procesos de toma de decisiones. Es
importante aclarar, al mismo tiempo,
que este artículo es conceptual y
preexperimental.
Palabras clave: consideraciones éticas, Principio de Posibilidades Alternativas
(PAP), robótica, tecnología sexual, responsabilidad social.
Recepción / Received: 6 de mayo del 2024
Evaluado / Evaluated: 26 de mayo del 2024
Aprobado / Accepted: 14 de junio del 2024
Historia del artículo / Article Info:
Correspondencia / Correspondence: Adrià Harillo Pla. Rua
Dr. Bento Teobaldo Ferraz, 271 - Barra Funda, São Paulo,
Brasil, (Código Postal: 01140-070). Correo-e: adria.harillo@
gmail.com
Citación / Citation: Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of
Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robots. Cuestiones de
Filosofía, 10 (34),171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
171
172 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Abstract
In this article, I present three scenarios regarding human sexual interactions
with robots. I approach them by considering the development, distribution,
and engagement with these technologies. These three scenarios, show
dierent levels of advancements, potential stereotypes, and ethical dilemmas,
clarifying the wide spectrum of expectations, principles, and social outcomes
intertwined with sexual robotics. Underscoring the signicance of individual
decision-making in this domain, in this article I advocate for the Principle of
Alternative Possibilities (PAP) as a relevant framework for understanding and
assessing the moral implications of these choices. Due to this fact, I consider
PAP to be a valid research framework for sexual robotics, since it respects
the diversity of choices, upholds the moral agency of social agents, and
addresses the ethical responsibilities inherent in decision-making processes.
It is important to clarify, at the same time, that this article is conceptual and
pre-experimental.
Keywords: ethical considerations, Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP),
robotics, sexual technology, social responsibility.
173
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
Introduction
Is the development of sex robots possible, desirable and salutary? This is a
philosophical question that is currently being analyzed. Although the term
robot comes from a 1920 science ction play titled Rossum’s Universal
Robots written by Karel Čapek (Kuiper, 2014), it was Isaac Asimov who,
in the 1940s, introduced the term robotics (Bartneck et al., 2020, p. 6). The
philosophical discussion on sexual robots, however, is usually linked to the
topic of Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), since it focuses on the ways in
which people engage with robots (Bartneck et al., 2020; Breazeal, 2004). The
expression “social robot” dates back to 1935, when it was used as a negative
term to describe an individual with a cold and distant personality. In 1978,
the term took on its current meaning, as an object of study with the goal of
making those interactions more appealing (Bartneck et al., 2020).
Among the diversity of scholars who have been interested in Human-Robot
Interactions, there are also philosophers. Precisely, one of the forms of
interaction that has received increasing philosophical attention, is that one
of a sexual nature. The establishment of this scope of studies, by itself, is
often considered to have begun with Levy (2007). After, the publication of
other books have followed (Danaher and McArthur, 2018; Devlin, 2018).
Philosophically, the majority of authors approached the topic by exploring
ethical considerations related to right and wrong, and judging if these
interactions are desirable and salutary (Nyholm, 2022; Peeters and Haselager,
2021). Other authors approached the topic by making of epistemological
inquiry the core of their research, while some placed metaphysics at the
center (Folkmann, 2010; Frank and Nyholm, 2017; Nyholm, 2020).
Current philosophical discussions on the matter can be generally divided
among those who consider that these sexual robots could have some sort
of agency, or sentience, and those who grant them no agency, or a limited
one (Akova, 2023; Nyholm and Frank, 2018). While I acknowledge this
dierence, the majority of the academic production takes as a conceptual
framework sexual robot without sentience nor agency. This factor is key,
since it is determinant for putting in the center of the philosophical research
the human, instead of the robot (Gerdes, 2016).
In this article, I present the ethical Principle of Alternative Possibilities (from
now on: PAP) as a valid ethical framework to be taken when performing
174 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
ethical research in the eld of human sexual interactions with robots. To make
this article relevant, and after clarifying the methodology in “Materials and
methods”, I deliver the results of this research in “Results”. The results show PAP
as a valid ethical position when performing ethical research on human sexual
interactions with robots. Its validity is the consequence of being an inclusive
research framework which acknowledges, and considers, dierent concerns and
realities that appear when obtaining conclusions about human sexual interactions
with robots. In “Discussion”, I present a philosophical discussion concerning the
subject, and I acknowledge some of its limitations, while presenting potential
lines of future research.
Materials and methods
In this article, I use a qualitative and theoretical research approach. I focus this
research on analyzing the most academically recognized literature regarding
the Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP). I extend, after, the research
to human sexual interactions with robots. The goal is to identify the most
common scenarios and concerns present in this relatively new philosophical
topic. To conclude, I apply PAP to these scenarios. See Figure 1:
Figure 1. Combination of both axis of this research with the goal in the center
The choice to employ qualitative analysis of secondary data, and a theoretical
approach, is driven by various considerations. Firstly, the research question is
exploratory and conceptual. Secondly, there is a wealth of scholarly literature
on PAP, social robotics, human-robot interactions, and human-centered
creativity, but not too many publications exist on quantitative studies regarding
175
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
human sexual interactions with robots, and its research framework. One of
the exceptions could be the one from Brandon and colleagues (2022). Lastly,
this method allows for the integration of diverse perspectives from multiple
sources, facilitating a comprehensive exploration of the research question.
To conduct this qualitative and theoretical analysis, I performed a literature
review which involved reputable academic databases, including peer-
reviewed articles, books, conference proceedings, and relevant reports. I
selected the sources based, exclusively, on their relevance to the research
topic and prestige within the scholar system.
By utilizing secondary data, I use a cost-eective and ecient methodology to
address the theoretical validity of PAP as a conceptual framework to perform
research on human sexual interactions with robots. Additionally, I mitigate
ethical concerns associated with direct human empirical experimentation.
Results
The research ndings underscore the dierent existing possibilities when
approaching the topic of developing, distributing, and engaging with sexual
robots. These options range from empowering advancements to potentially
harmful stereotypes and ethical dilemmas. This diversity in its development,
distribution, and engagement, reects a diversity of expectations, principles,
and anticipated social outcomes associated with sexual robotics. It also
highlights the interplay between technological innovation, societal values,
and ethical considerations in shaping the future of human-robot interactions.
Moreover, the active role of dierent social agents in choosing among these
diverse possibilities emphasizes the importance of individual decision-making.
Due to this fact, I conclude that the Principle of Alternative Possibilities
emerges as a pertinent framework for understanding and evaluating these
decisions and their moral implications. This principle acknowledges that
social agents are morally responsible for the choices they make, given the
alternative possibilities available to them.
I defend that by using PAP as a research framework it is respected the diversity
of choices, the moral agency of social agents, and the ethical responsibilities
inherent in decision-making. According to the obtained results, this framework
oers insights that can inform responsible innovation, ethical guidelines, and
societal discourse surrounding sexual robotics. See Table 1:
176 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Table 1. Results of this research based on the development, entanglements, and ethics
involved in the dierent cases evaluated
Case A Case B Case C Synthesis
Development
Sex robots
could be de-
veloped with
agency and
sentience, or
without it.
Sex robots
could be
developed as
stereotypical
women, to be
abused, or as
lacking com-
plete agency,
They could
also be develo-
ped in dierent
ways.
Sex robots
could be
developed as
a necessary
tool, and under
monopolistic
conditions.
They could
also be develo-
ped in dierent
ways.
Sex robots
could be deve-
loped in many
ways, even in
opposite ways.
This deci-
sion could be
the result of
dierent ex-
pectations and
principles, and
could produce
dierent social
outcomes.
Entanglements
Developers
could decide
what kind
of robot to
develop. Dis-
tributors could
decide what
kind of robot
to distribute,
to whom, and
under what
circumstances.
The customer
could select
how to use the
robot, and how
it aects its
human sexual
partners.
Developers
could decide
what kind
of robot to
develop. Dis-
tributors could
decide what
kind of robot
to distribute,
to whom, and
under what
circumstances.
The customer
could select
what kind of
robot to select.
Developers
could decide
what kind of
robot to deve-
lop and what
business ethics
to follow. Dis-
tributors could
decide what
kind of robot
to distribute,
to whom, and
under what
circumstances.
The customer
could choose
to use the robot
as a comple-
ment, or as a
substitute.
Dierent social
agents could
choose among
the dierent
available pos-
sibilities.
177
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
Ethics
Developers,
distributors,
and users,
have dierent
possibilities.
According to
PAP, they are
accountable for
the chosen op-
tion among the
possibilities.
Developers,
distributors,
and users,
have dierent
possibilities.
According to
PAP, they are
accountable
for the chosen
option among
the available
choices.
Developers,
distributors,
and users,
have dierent
possibilities.
According to
PAP, they are
accountable
for the chosen
option among
the available
choices.
Dierent
social agents
are morally
responsible for
their decision,
and usage, re-
garding sexual
robots. This is
coherent with
the Principle
of Alternative
Possibilities.
Discussion
Principle of Alternative Possibilities (PAP)
The objective of this research is not to perform a metaethical approach to the
PAP, but rather its applicability as a research framework for human sexual
interactions with robots. As a consequence, the results are based on the
denition of the PAP provided by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
According to it, “a person is morally responsible for what she has done only
if she could have done otherwise” (Robb, 2020).
This approach has been criticized, mainly, by deterministic approaches.
Although I acknowledge the deterministic approach, it does not seem to
invalidate, specially, the relevance of the PAP as a research framework for
human sexual interactions with robots. If by adhering to a strong deterministic
viewpoint we conclude that Genetics, God, limited foresight, or other factors
limit a person’s capacity to choose among alternatives, this does not seem
to make a dierence between sex with robots, or any other kind of action.
Precisely because of this, usually the PAP considers the concept of freedom.
Again according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “a person is
ultimately morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have
done otherwise [and often] only if she did it freely” (2020).
I conclude that the PAP, as a research framework in which “a person is
ultimately morally responsible for what she has done only if she could have
done otherwise [and often] only if she did it freely” is valid for human sexual
interactions with robots. However, to come to this conclusion logically, I
178 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
have to prove that in the majority of scenarios present in the scholar literature,
the involved agents are free, and can choose, by action or omission, among
courses of action.
Sexual robots with or without agency
Academic production concerning sex robots focuses mainly on robots
lacking sentience or agency (Akova, 2023). This is because the technical
requirements to achieve robots with agency and sentience are very complex,
and are still far from being achieved. When this kind of robot is possible (if
ever), its price will be very high, at least initially, if we take as a reference the
example of other technological innovations (Jackson, 2018). This means that
in our current economic context, sexual robots with agency and sentience
will not be available, soon, to the public. However, the source of the articial
sentience and agency is often thought to be possible in the same way as other
articial organs work. For example, a Total Articial Heart replaces a natural
heart, and with that (among others), human life is possible. In the same way,
the usage of an articial element might replace the natural part that allows
for sentience and agency, without compromising sentience or agency for the
robot (Akova, 2023).
In these cases, the main philosophical concerns refer to the fact that, if a robot
does not have agency or sentience, the user could instrumentalize it, and
by extension, end up instrumentalizing human sexual partners (Lancaster,
2021; Richardson, 2015). While acknowledging this concern, from a PAP
approach, the user has certainly the possibility of instrumentalizing the robot,
as with another articial interactive device thought to generate pleasure or
fun, let’s say, a vibrator, or a console to play video games. The user has,
nevertheless, other alternatives. The user could, for example, show attitudes
of respect, care, and even admiration towards the articial object, similar to
those shown by collectors towards the inanimate, articial and interactive
objects that they own. An illustrative example of this could be the one from
a car collector.
As I already mentioned, the other main concern that often appears when
addressing the topic of sexual robots without agency or sentience, is that the
instrumentalization of the robot would extrapolate to human sexual partners,
for example, in the form of rape (Danaher, 2017; Regehr and Glancy, 2001;
Sparrow, 2017). Once again, I would like to acknowledge the relevance
179
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
of those concerns. We could probably agree, however, in the existence of
interactive practices involving humans and articial instruments, such as
laser tag or paintball. Statistically speaking, people playing laser tag or
paintball, do not end up committing murder. Due to this, and from a PAP
perspective, there exist alternative possibilities, both from the developer and
the consumer standpoint. Even if at any point it is possible to develop sexual
robots with agency and sentience, the developer could decide not to develop
them, and make them without agency and sentience. The manufacturer
could even decide not to produce sexual robots of any kind, being therefore
ethically responsible for his decision.
The customer, from his side, could decide not to engage in any sexual activity
with a sexual robot, or to treat the robot as a mere tool, or as a tool to which
some feelings of respect, care, and admiration are attached. Independently of
this, the customer could treat equally, or dierently, its human sexual partners.
Some authors defend that there is not alternative possible, since patriarchal
societies are making this kind of choice not realistic (Mohajan, 2022). I reject
this approach since, rstly, there is no clear evidence of this fact. Secondly,
developers, and consumers do not necessarily have to be men, and all of
them can have diverse socio-cultural determinant characteristics. Lastly,
even in the case of accepting the argument, the ethical issue presented is not
intrinsic to the research in the eld of sexual robots, and therefore, is out of
the scope of this article.
A similar degree of autonomy seems to apply to the distributor, who might
choose what kind of sexual robot, if any, distribute. The distributor could
also select to whom, and under what kind of circumstances, the distribution
takes place.
As a consequence, from a human perspective, the creation, distribution, and
consumption of sexual robots with or without agency and sentience, does not
seem to limit to zero, or to one, the available courses of action to be taken.
Therefore, humans must be ethically accountable. See Table 2:
180 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Table 2. Development, entanglements, and ethics involved in sexual robots with or
without agency
Case A
Development Sex robots could be developed with agency and sentience, or
without it.
Entanglements Developers could decide what kind of robot to develop.
Distributors could decide what kind of robot to distribute, to
whom, and under what circumstances.
Ethics Developers, distributors, and users, have dierent possibilities.
According to PAP, they are accountable for the chosen option
among the available choices.
Sexual robots with specic shapes
Philosophically, another ethical reection is often related to the design and
aesthetics of these robots. The attention is given to sexual robots which, due
to their shape, could be ethically considered as unnecessary, undesirable, and/
or not salutary (Sterri and Earp, 2021). Mainly, the shapes that fall into this
category, although not hermetically divided in reality, can be seen in Table 3:
Table 3. The most common designs of sexual robots
Robot design Reason for concern
Female-shaped, whose design matches
social and pornographic stereotypes
Feminist philosophy considers this design
a concern since it can contribute to wo-
men's objectication.
Designed to be raped or abused Although it could be used therapeutically,
these practices could also be extended to
real humans. At the same time, a robot
with the ability to actively not grant con-
sent could generate the necessary scena-
rio for rape simulation
Minors or without entire agency This issue raises questions about consent,
autonomy, power dynamics, and moral
responsibility.
Note. The most common designs of sexual robots, which generated philosophical discussion. Based
on: Danaher (2017; 2019), Kubes (2019), Peeters and Haselager (2021), Richardson (2015),
Sparrow (2017), Strikwerda (2017).
181
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
In this case, and following a very similar reasoning as the one performed in
the previous step, it appears that PAP is a valid ethical research framework
to analyze the topic of the design. This statement is sustained by the fact
that, the manufacturer of the robot, is free to choose its design according to
its values. For example, while one designer could opt for designing robots
which resemble stereotypical women, or minors, or people with limited
agency, another could opt to perform robots which are for a specic niche.
This other niche could include empowered robots, or robots with dierent
gender and overall characteristics. Even if the society as a whole would
only be interested in sexual robots which objectify women, or which are
considered to be not salutary, nor desirable, the producer could always opt to
perform any other professional activity, if that aligns better with its values.
Regarding the distributor, and the consumer, the same reasoning applies.
While the distributor could be free to decide what kind of model they
distribute, and under what circumstances, the consumer could engage with
some type of robot, and not with another. The consumer could even choose
between companies which oer similar robots, based on their values. Let’s
imagine that one produces creates a robot which resembles an adult man, with
whole agency, and empowered. The customer could have two very similar
models, at very similar prices, provided by two dierent manufacturers
and distributors. One of the manufacturers, however, allocates a part of its
money to prevention of sexual abuse policies as a form of corporate social
responsibility, and this is a decisive factor in the customer’s nal decision
(Islam et al., 2021). See Table 4:
182 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Table 4. Development, entanglements, and ethics involved in sexual robots with
specic shapes
Case B
Development Sex robots could be developed as
stereotypical women, to be abused, or as
lacking complete agency. They could also
be developed in dierent ways.
Entanglements Developers could decide what kind of robot
to develop. Distributors could decide what
kind of robot to distribute, to whom, and
under what circumstances. The customer
could select what kind of robot to select.
Ethics Developers, distributors, and users, have
dierent possibilities. According to PAP,
they are accountable for the chosen option
among the available choices.
Human practices towards robots and humans
The third type of scenario that philosophically generated philosophical
inquiry is the one that proposes how the sexual interaction between humans
and robots can aect sexual relations between human and human (Sterri and
Earp, 2021). This topic is not hermetic, since it has points of contact with
others, such as the one initially presented regarding objectication of the
other. However, here I am referring to situations in which the production,
distribution, and consumption of sexual robots would generate a dierent
sort of impact.
Philosophically relevant situations in this aspect are, to put just an example,
those in which the consumption of sexual robots ends up liming sexual
interactions between humans, ending in situations of loneliness, lack of
empathy, or lack of social engagement (Lawson, 2017).
Another example would be the one derived from a situation in which the
excessive customization of the robot prevents the owner from accepting
the existing alternatives available when trying to establish a human-human
sexual relationship (Oleksy and Wnuk, 2021). Even if the result of this kind of
situation can be similar to the previous one, in this case, the reaction could be
of a more oensive nature towards the other humans, and less introspective.
183
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
As on previous occasions, PAP seems to be a valid framework to establish
an ethical research environment because, although it is true that from the
manufacturer’s standpoint, some type of sex robot could even limit the number
of human sexual interactions to the point of turning sex robots almost a necessity
or even a kind of monopoly; there is also the possibility of creating robots from
a business ethics perspective. In this case, that would contribute to improving
condence in people who, for dierent reasons, do not feel comfortable, or
cannot have human sexual relations, but wish to (Fosch Villaronga and Poulsen,
2021; Fosch-Villaronga and Poulsen, 2020). This includes, but it is not limited
to, people with social anxiety, psychological trauma, or mobility problems. In
this case, perhaps the robot must not be understood as an entertainment robot,
but a therapeutic or educative one, which usage promotes positive sexual
human-human interactions (Cox-George and Bewley, 2018; Eichenberg et al.,
2019; Peeters and Haselager, 2021).
From the distributor’s perspective, he would also have the freedom to choose
to whom and under what circumstances he distributes those sex robots,
depending in part on their desired impact on human relationships. In fact,
we are used to seeing how the production of some articial materials is
considered ethical under some circumstances but not under others. We can
use drugs as an example. Drugs are a technological production that, when
obtained under the mediated role of health personnel without conict of
interests, are generally considered socially positive (Azcarate et al., 2020).
On the contrary, drugs distributed in uncontrolled, unregulated, and illegal
circumstances, purely for recreational purposes, are typically considered
unethical (Muncan et al., 2020). As with the drugs, a similar reasoning could
be applied to sexual robots, and its social consequences.
To conclude, and as far as the consumer is concerned, a similar reasoning
can be applied. From the customer’s approach, the usage of a robot as a
complement or substitute for the human, can improve the pleasure obtained,
self-esteem, etc. On the other side, abusive usage of these robots could
result in a lack of socially constructive interactions, as other technological
developments have already shown (Lawson, 2017). This could lead to lack
of acceptance towards other humans, or the creation of false expectations,
such as it happened with some forms of porn consumption (Donnerstein,
1980, 1984; Goldsmith et al., 2017; McKee et al., 2021). Also in this
case, the decision among all possible alternatives by the consumer, seems
184 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
to be consistent with the PAP framework. It is the consumer's decision to
understand that the robot is a simple tool, which it is not a substitute, but a
complement of the real human. It is the customer’s decision to understand
that, at least, at this step of their development, no sexual robot can fully
substitute human-human interactions. See Table 5:
Table 5. Development, entanglements, and ethics involved in sexual robots and its
impact in human-human sexual relations
Case C
Development Sex robots could be developed as a ne-
cessary tool, and under monopolistic
conditions. They could also be develo-
ped in dierent ways.
Entanglements Developers could decide what kind of ro-
bot to develop and what business ethics
to follow. Distributors could decide what
kind of robot to distribute, to whom, and
under what circumstances. The customer
could choose to use the robot as a com-
plement, or as a substitute.
Ethics Developers, distributors, and users,
have dierent possibilities. According
to PAP, they are accountable for the cho-
sen option among the available choices.
Acknowledgements
I would like to extend my gratitude to all the scholars who have dedicated their
time and eorts to researching the topic at hand. Regardless of their approach
or results, their contributions have signicantly enriched the eld and paved
the way for innovative research. Every insight, idea, and perspective has
been invaluable in pushing the boundaries of knowledge forward.
185
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
References
Akova, F. (2023). Articially sentient beings: Moral, political, and legal issues.
New Techno Humanities, 3 (1), pp. 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techum.2023.04.001
Azcarate, P. M., Zhang, A. J., Keyhani, S., Steigerwald, S., Ishida, J. H.,
and Cohen, B. E. (2020). Medical Reasons for Marijuana Use, Forms
of Use, and Patient Perception of Physician Attitudes Among the US
Population. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35 (7), pp. 1979-
1986. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05800-7
Bartneck, C., Belpaeme, T., Eyssel, F., Kanda, T., Keijsers, M., and Šabanović,
S. (2020). Human-Robot Interaction: An Introduction. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676649
Brandon, M., Shlykova, N., and Morgentaler, A. (2022). Curiosity and other
attitudes towards sex robots: Results of an online survey. Journal of
Future Robot Life, 3 (1), pp. 3-16. https://doi.org/10.3233/FRL-200017
Breazeal, C. (2004). Designing Sociable Robots. Cambridge / London: The
MIT Press.
Cox-George, C. and Bewley, S. (2018). I, Sex Robot: The health implications
of the sex robot industry. BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health, 44 (3),
pp. 161-164. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2017-200012
Danaher, J. (2017). Robotic Rape and Robotic Child Sexual Abuse: Should
They be Criminalised? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 11 (1), pp. 71-
95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-014-9362-x
Danaher, J. and McArthur, N. (2018). Robot Sex. Social and Ethical
Implications. Cambridge / London: MIT Press.
Danaher, J. (2019). Regulating Child Sex Robots: Restriction or
Experimentation? Medical Law Review, 27 (4), pp. 553-575. https://
doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwz002
186 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Devlin, K. (2018). Turned On: Science, Sex and Robots. London: Bloomsbury.
Donnerstein, E. (1980). Pornography and Violence Against Women:
Experimental Studies. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
347, pp. 277-288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1980.tb21278.x
Donnerstein, E. (1984). Pornography: Its Eect on Violence against Women.
N. M. Malamuth and E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Pornography and
Sexual Aggression (pp. 53-81). Orlando: Academic Press. https://doi.
org/10.1016/B978-0-12-466280-3.50009-9
Eichenberg, C., Khamis, M. and Hübner, L. (2019). The Attitudes of Therapists
and Physicians on the Use of Sex Robots in Sexual Therapy: Online
Survey and Interview Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21
(8), e13853. https://doi.org/10.2196/13853
Folkmann, M. N. (2010). Evaluating Aesthetics in Design: A Phenomenological
Approach. Design Issues, 26 (1), pp. 40-53. https://doi.org/10.1162/
desi.2010.26.1.40
Fosch-Villaronga, E., and Poulsen, A. (2020). Sex care robots: Exploring the
potential use of sexual robot technologies for disabled and elder care.
Paladyn, Journal of Behavioral Robotics, 11 (1), pp. 1-18. https://doi.
org/10.1515/pjbr-2020-0001
Fosch Villaronga, E. and Poulsen, A. (2021). Sex Robots in Care: Setting
the Stage for a Discussion on the Potential Use of Sexual Robot
Technologies for Persons with Disabilities. ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, March 8–11, pp. 1-9. https://
doi.org/10.1145/3434074.3446907
Frank, L., and Nyholm, S. (2017). Robot sex and consent: Is consent to sex
between a robot and a human conceivable, possible, and desirable?
Articial Intelligence and Law, 25 (3), pp. 305-323. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10506-017-9212-y
Gerdes, A. (2016). The issue of moral consideration in robot ethics. ACM
SIGCAS Computers and Society, 45 (3), pp. 274-279. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2874239.2874278
187
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
Goldsmith, K., Dunkley, C. R., Dang, S. S. and Gorzalka, B. B. (2017).
Pornography consumption and its association with sexual concerns and
expectations among young men and women. The Canadian Journal
of Human Sexuality, 26 (2), pp. 151-162. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cjhs.262-a2
Islam, T., Islam, R., Pita, A. H., Xiaobei, L., Rehmani, M., Irfan, M. and
Mubarak, M. S. (2021). The impact of corporate social responsibility on
customer loyalty: The mediating role of corporate reputation, customer
satisfaction, and trust. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25,
pp. 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.019
Jackson, D. (2018). Protability, Mechanization and Economies of Scale.
London: Routledge.
Kubes, T. (2019). New Materialist Perspectives on Sex Robots. A Feminist
Dystopia/Utopia? Social Sciences, 8 (8), https://doi.org/10.3390/
socsci8080224
Kuiper. (2014). R.U.R.: Rossum’s Universal Robots. Encyclopedia Britannica.
Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/RUR
Lancaster, K. (2021). Non-consensual personied sexbots: An intrinsic
wrong. Ethics and Information Technology, 23 (4), pp. 589-600. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09597-9
Lawson, C. (2017). Technology and Isolation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Levy, D. (2007). Love and Sex with Robots: The Evolution of Human-Robot
Relationships. New York: HarperCollins.
McKee, A., Litsou, K., Byron, P. and Ingham, R. (2021). The relationship
between consumption of pornography and consensual sexual practice:
Results of a mixed method systematic review. The Canadian Journal
of Human Sexuality, 30 (3), pp. 387-396. https://doi.org/10.3138/
cjhs.2021-0010
188 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Mohajan, H. K. (2022). An Overview on the Feminism and Its Categories.
Research and Advances in Education, 1 (3), pp. 11-26. https://doi.
org/10.56397/RAE.2022.09.02
Muncan, B., Walters, S. M., Ezell, J. and Ompad, D. C. (2020). “They look at us
like junkies”: Inuences of drug use stigma on the healthcare engagement
of people who inject drugs in New York City. Harm Reduction Journal,
17 (53). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-020-00399-8
Nyholm, S. (2020). Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and
Anthropomorphism. London: Rowman & Littleeld.
Nyholm, S. (2022). The Ethics of Humanoid Sex Robots. B. D. Earp,
C. Chambers and L. Watson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
Philosophy of Sex and Sexuality (pp. 574-585). London: Routledge.
Nyholm, S. and Frank, L. (2018). From sex robots to love robots: Is mutual
love with a robot possible? J. Danaher and N. McArthur (Eds.), Robot
sex: Social and ethical implications. MIT Press. https://philpapers.org/
rec/NYHFSR
Oleksy, T. and Wnuk, A. (2021). Do women perceive sex robots as
threatening? The role of political views and presenting the robot as a
female-vs male-friendly product. Computers in Human Behavior, 117,
106664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106664
Peeters, A. and Haselager, P. (2021). Designing Virtuous Sex Robots.
International Journal of Social Robotics, 13 (1), pp. 55-66. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12369-019-00592-1
Regehr, C. and Glancy, G. (2001). Empathy and Its Inuence on Sexual
Misconduct. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2 (2), pp. 142-154. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1524838001002002003
Richardson, K. (2015). The Asymmetrical ‘Relationship’- Parallels
Between Prostitution and the Development of Sex Robots. SIGCAS
Computers & Society, 45 (3), pp. 290-293. https://dl.acm.org/
doi/10.1145/2874239.2874281
189
Harrillo, A. (2024). The Principle of Alternative Possibilities: An Ethical Research Framework
for Human Sexual Interactions with Robot. Cuestiones de Filosofía, 10 (34), 171-190.
https://doi.org/10.19053/uptc.01235095.v10.n34.2024.17589
Robb, D. (2020). Moral Responsibility and the Principle of Alternative
Possibilities. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford
University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/
alternative-possibilities/
Sparrow, R. (2017). Robots, Rape, and Representation. International Journal
of Social Robotics, 9 (4), pp. 465-477. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-
017-0413-z
Sterri, A. B. and Earp, B. (2021). The ethics of sex robots. C. Véliz (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics (pp. 241-257). Oxford University
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.13
Strikwerda, L. (2017). Legal and Moral Implications of Child Sex Robots.
J. Danaher and N. McArthur (Eds.), Robot Sex: Social and Ethical
Implications (pp. 133-152). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/
mitpress/9780262036689.003.0008
190 Cuestiones de Filosofía No. 34 - Vol. 10 Año 2024 ISSN 0123-5095 Tunja-Colombia
Política de acceso abierto
Cuestiones de Filosofía proporciona acceso abierto a su contenido,
propiciando un mayor intercambio global del conocimiento, basado en el
principio de ofrecer al público un acceso libre a las investigaciones, para ello,
los textos publicados cuentan con una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
4.0 que posibilita su uso y difusión siempre y cuando se realice la citación
de los autores y la revista, y no se use para nes comerciales. Por esta razón,
los autores aceptan la licencia de uso utilizada por Cuestiones de Filosofía, al
igual que las políticas de autoarchivo y acceso abierto. En consecuencia, los
derechos de los artículos publicados le corresponden a la revista. La revista
Cuestiones de Filosofía no cobra ningún valor por concepto de recepción
de artículos, evaluación o publicación, por consiguiente, la publicación de
artículos en la revista no da derecho a remuneración alguna para autores,
evaluadores y comités (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).
