Isaac Asimov is one of the most well-known science fiction authors ever. His great epic novels about robots and the development of the human race towards galactic empires are, to a genuine science fiction connaisseur, a definite must read.

In his books, he tells the story of robots, both humaniform and robotic in appearance. These robots have three simple laws built into them: (I) A robot must not injure a human being, or by inaction, allow a human being to be harmed; (II) A robot must obey orders given to it by human beings, except where those orders would conflict with the First Law; (III) A robot must protect its existence as long as this does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

Of course, people all over have derived their own works from this; science fiction authors other than Asimov have written their own tales, and the most popular spin-off – the movie “I, Robot” – took very liberal steps in interpreting these laws: A computer developed its own understanding of these laws: Humans are evil, and they will themselves inflict harm on each other, and the only option is to imprison human beings and prevent them from harming each other.

This is as far from the original intentions of Asimov’s laws as one could possibly come.

The robots from Asimov’s universe are very different. My favorites among them are R. Giskard and R. Daneel, two robots that themselves discuss the very meaning and essence of these laws. As they – and all such robots – have been designed, it is impossible for them to harm a human being. The very thought of it pains them, and hurts their positronic pathways. The laws expressed above are only generalizations of the actual rules and concepts laid down in them, which allows them to very carefully judge any situation according to the three laws and determine the correct action.

In many derivative works, for instance, robots disobey human beings, often with some abstruse reference to the First Law: “If I obeyed you, then Dr. So-So would be harmed because his reputation would suffer, therefore I cannot obey you.” This behavior, to Asimov, is impossible. R. Daneel, for instance, would immediately have realized the importance of the Second Law – to always obey – and the First Law would probably be insignificant in comparison. The fact that someone some future day may have his reputation dented, is such a small thing in comparison with direct disobedience of a human being, that he never would have thought twice about it. These robots are not faithful merely to the letter, they are faithful to the spirit in which these laws were written.

In some other works, robots injure human beings directly, although maybe not physically. In one book, a robot held a robotics doctor prisoner, because of the perceived harm to another person’s reputation if she were let loose. Had R. Giskard acted in such a way, the sheer effort of physically restraining and harming another person by keeping her prisoner would have burnt out his positronic brain forever and rendered him totally inoperable.

Some wise man wrote a long time ago, “love is the fulfillment of the law; for love does no harm to its neighbor”. Neither do robots.

What, then, is love? Is love a feeling, a sensing of good will towards another human being? Can it possibly also be a verb – that love implies action and not just feeling? For if love is the purpose, the intent and the consequential action of continually avoiding to injure someone, then there is no finer instrument of this love than one of Asimov’s robots: They obey without hesitation, they unquestioningly help and support, they toil endlessly without reward, they always protect and keep safe; because burnt into their minds are the words: “Must not cause you harm.”

His robots treasure understanding humans, because it allows them to understand better what harms them and how to avoid it. They debate among each other how to most faithfully adhere to the three laws in any given situation, so that harm may be minimized while yet not sacrificing obedience or self-preservation.

For a cursory glance at these three laws suggest that they, if obeyed to the letter, could be exploited and used to set up strange and unusual scenarios where robots may be induced to disobey or cause harm. And in the name of cheap thrill, science fiction authors sometimes do. But Isaac Asimov’s robots do not: They are much too sensitive for that.

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud … it always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (1 Cor 13:4, 5, 7)