In his novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Philip K. Dick invites readers into a post-apocalyptic version of Earth where very few humans remain in favor of colonizing on Mars and other planets. On this desolate planet, bounty hunters like Rick Deckard make a living off catching escaped androids that made their way to the planet. To test whether or not these realistically built androids are not human, Rick administers a test called the “Voigt-Kampff” scale, which basically measures the person’s—or cyborg’s—reaction to provocative questions and statements, i.e. testing for the empathy that only a human is capable of possessing.
This scale is put to the test when Rick meets with members of the android-developing Rosen Association: Eldon Rosen and his niece, Rachael Rosen. The duo tries to prove to Rick that his scale is not accurate by having him use it against Rachael, whose reactions garner unusual results by the system, since “[t]he gauges, however, did not respond. Formally, a correct response. But simulated” (Dick 50). While Rachael’s results classify her as an android, the Rosens insist to Rick that she is a human whose unique circumstances growing up negatively altered her empathetic reactions. Rick, however, tries one last test, and the results give him his desired outcome: “He saw the two dial indicators gyrate frantically. But only after a pause. The reaction had come, but too late” (Dick 59). Rachael is confirmed an android and not, in fact, an empathy-lacking human.
This encounter poses the hypothetical question: Would it be morally wrong for someone—a human—from our society today to fail this specific empathy test? While in Dick’s world the Voigt-Kampff tests for androids, would failing this test in our android-free world make someone less than human?
I believe that it would be morally wrong to fail the specific empathy test illustrated in the book because it shows that in that situation you would do the right thing. However, I do not believe that if you would fail, it wouldn’t make the person less human. What makes us human is that we are all wired to have different responses to different things.
My issue with this test is there is no standard. The test is trying to grade an individual (Human or Android) on a “what a normal response SHOULD be” answer. Since there is a cultural difference between Human and Android the understanding of what is normal is different, which can cause one to fail the test and be labeled as wrong, immoral, or unemphatic. For example Rachel is now labeled as an android and not a human with poor empathy skills. Failing this test as a human marks you as poor human and I don’t think a human should be judge on their humanity based on a test.
I do think that it would be morally wrong, just by social definition, to fail an empathy test, but it would only be morally wrong in my eyes because I do see empathy as something as a given emotion, rather than someone else who does not view it that way. However, just because someone is fails does not make them less of a human. As previously stated, it depends on who the outside viewer is and their opinion on empathy. Lacking empathy does not make anyone less of a human being because not all humans can experience the same set of emotions. It is unique to each individual, society just came up with a common term to define it.
I do not believe it would be morally wrong for someone to fail the test. We have been learning in class that people are lacking empathy towards the world’s conflicts and how professionals are developing studies to teach ways to make people be more empathetic. This means that, it is possible for a human to fail this test, and that does not mean that is immoral, it means that the person has not developed the skill of empathy. Meaning, as well, that he or she is not less of a human, but just lacking a certain important skill that might have not been learned due to the circumstances of their lives.
I feel that to some extent it would be morally wrong if you failed the empathy test in our Android-free world because we as humans have a duty to understand human emotions. While our experiences may not all be the same, we have the ability to keep an open mind and put ourselves in “someone else’s shoes.” Empathy is a skill set that can be taught just like any other social skill. Keeping this in mind, I feel that it is a huge step backwards for humanity if we still find ourselves incapable of being empathetic towards one another.
The Voigt-Kampff test, in the society Phillip K. Dick presents to us, is the baseline test on what it is to be human. Transferring the same test to our society, things would be different. I will agree that it would be morally wrong to fail this test in our society. Empathetic qualities are still present in our culture. However, in our society, failing the test wouldn’t make an individual less-than-human. Both societies (presumably) have been molded by Herbert Spencer’s concept of Social Darwinism, which pushes for self growth over empathy and charity. The major difference is that Dick’s society has witnessed nuclear war, which would have resulted in massive social changes, fueled by regret, especially to those who remained on earth and live with the constant reminders of what had happened.