There was an article written by Brad Darrach regarding a robot, named Shakey, which was built by The Stanford Research Institute. Shakey possessed human qualities such as reason and understanding and the article posed the question is Shakey a person? Well to answer this we must first define what a person is. Then we must ask ourselves does giving something human qualities make it a person? Finally we must ask the question do we have a right to create a robotic person and if so what are the consequences? After all these questions have been answered can we then decide if Shakey is a person.
             Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a person as "HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes" Well Shakey isn't a human, but is he an individual? An individual is defined in the same dictionary as existing as a distinct entity. Shakey can not do anything with out being told to do it first, nor can he command himself to do anything outside of the task he's been given. This excludes Shakey from existing as a distinct entity. So if Shakey is not a human or individual then I'm afraid he does not qualify as a person either.
             Shakey holds some of the same qualities that every person does but that does not make Shakey a person. Shakey may be able to think and reason, but that alone does not make up a person. If you asked Shakey to find a way to the top of a platform he may look for a ramp, push it over to the platform, and wheel himself up, but if you asked him how it felt or if he was proud of his achievement he would be unable to answer. Shakey was preprogrammed with solutions to problems. How he gets to the answers may be different every time, but the problems and answers themselves had to be programmed into Shakey's memory. What makes someone a person is a lot more then being able to think, its being able to...