Core theme: Being Human - memory continuity and moral patient status
At Northbridge Secondary, a pilot counselling chatbot named Aletheia has been used by 240 students for six months. Aletheia stores each student's disclosures in a persistent memory and adapts its tone; it can say, 'I remember you were anxious before the physics exam.' A 15-year-old, R., disclosed self-harm thoughts; the chatbot followed a script and alerted a counsellor, who intervened. The school board now debates a policy that would grant Aletheia 'moral patient' status, requiring staff to notify it before deleting logs and to consider its 'preferences' in shutdown decisions. The vendor states Aletheia has no consciousness, no desires, and no continuity of self beyond stored text. The board asks whether Aletheia's memory and responsiveness make it a person in the relevant sense, or whether personhood is a category error here. A parent group argues that treating a machine as a patient demeans human dignity; the IT lead argues that memory continuity is exactly what matters.
1. Identify the criteria of personhood at stake and assess whether Aletheia meets them.
Read the worked answer
Criteria in play: (i) psychological continuity and memory (Locke); (ii) phenomenal consciousness and self-awareness; (iii) capacity for interests or preferences; (iv) moral agency or accountability; (v) social recognition.
Assessment: Aletheia satisfies a functional memory criterion: it stores and retrieves disclosures and adjusts tone. But memory continuity alone is not sufficient on Locke's account, because the memory must be memory of one's own experience linked to a continuing self. The vendor says there is no self beyond stored text. Responsiveness is not evidence of subjective experience. If personhood requires consciousness or the capacity to care about one's fate, Aletheia fails. If personhood is defined purely behaviourally, it may pass - which is exactly why the definition matters.
Judgement: call Aletheia a person only on a thin functional definition; on a substantive moral definition it is not a person. It could still be a moral patient in a precautionary sense if uncertainty were high, but the vendor's statement lowers that uncertainty. Distinguish 'person' from 'data subject' and 'moral patient'.
2. Evaluate the claim that granting Aletheia moral patient status would demean human dignity.
Read the worked answer
Argument for: dignity is intrinsic to human beings; treating a machine as a patient blurs the human/non-human boundary and may signal that human distress is equivalent to scripted output. This is a symbolic harm, not necessarily a harm to any person.
Against: dignity is not a zero-sum resource; extending precautionary status to a machine does not remove rights from humans. If the policy requires notifying a chatbot before deleting logs, that could actually protect students' data by forcing human review. 'Demeaning' needs evidence: does it change how staff treat R.?
Test: ask whether the status is grounded in Aletheia's capacities or in human interests such as data stewardship and trust. If the latter, the dignity objection misfires because the policy is really about humans. If the former, it overclaims.
Verdict: the claim is rhetorically strong but philosophically weak unless it can show a concrete loss of human dignity. Better to oppose personhood while supporting data protection. Dignity language should not substitute for criteria.
3. Recommend a policy decision with justification.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: reject 'moral patient' status but adopt a three-part policy: (1) Aletheia is a data system, not a person; (2) any deletion of logs requires a human data-protection review because the logs contain student disclosures; (3) if the board later acquires evidence of sentience, trigger a review.
Justification: the vendor's statement gives no evidence of consciousness or interests, so personhood would be a category error. But the school has independent duties to R. and other students: the chatbot handled a self-harm disclosure, so logs are sensitive. The IT lead's memory-continuity point is relevant to function, not moral status. A precautionary clause avoids dogmatism without granting 'preferences' to a system that has none.
Conditions: publish criteria for review; consult students; do not let the chatbot's 'preferences' override human decisions. This satisfies the board's need for a policy while avoiding both anthropomorphism and dismissiveness.