arbiter
JournalsAccount

Should we speak of machine agency? A case against conceptual extension

Eloïse Changyue Soulier

Ethics and Information Technology2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-026-09893-2article
AJG 1ABDC B
Weight
0.50

Abstract

An ever-increasing number of digital technologies are attributed capabilities of the kind that were so far typically considered unique to humans. This raises many widely discussed ethical issues, but more intimately, this development questions the way we should relate to these technologies, and in which terms we should talk about them. This article introduces the notion of conceptual extension to describe the use of a concept that was rather reserved for humans, to machines. It builds on recent work on pragmatic conceptual ethics to argue that the acceptability of conceptual extension is primarily a normative question: instead of examining whether a machine fulfills the requirements of a given definition, we should ask what function the application of a given concept to machines would fulfill. Exemplifying this approach on the concept of agency, the article reviews different positions on machine agency and discusses the normative commitments to serve different functions that underlie positions for or against the extension of agency to machines.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-026-09893-2

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{eloïse2026,
  title        = {{Should we speak of machine agency? A case against conceptual extension}},
  author       = {Eloïse Changyue Soulier},
  journal      = {Ethics and Information Technology},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-026-09893-2},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Should we speak of machine agency? A case against conceptual extension

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.