It is understandable to fear that which is unknown and untried. In 2026, robotic androids are one such example.
Despite the tremendous advantages that a Tesla Optimus robotic android assistant might offer an aging senior population—decreased loneliness, assistance with house cleaning, food preparation, and, possibly when legislated, accompanying seniors to a grocery store or appointments in a Cybercab—we may nonetheless fairly ask questions such as: What might happen if the robot does not perform as programmed? Does its software programming include ethical reasoning, and if so, which type—teleological, deontological, virtue, relationship, or a combination thereof? And, more foundationally, from what identity and origin does that ethical reasoning proceed?
Although Optimus and future generations either presently possess or will possess tremendous capabilities in how they move—bending, climbing, grasping, wiping, walking, talking, possibly driving—are they prepared to reason ethically and, if so, how? Are they programmed with moral principles? If so, which ones? If faced with demands from their owners or renters that fall outside of prescribed societal norms, such as assignments appearing more like forced labor than measured chores with break periods, how will the robot react?
Are anomalous robotic behaviors responsive? This article came to mind after seeing several video clips on the X platform of non-Tesla robots appearing to go berserk or punch people, as well as learning about a South Korean robot that fell down a staircase after being observed circling in place (widely discussed in media as the first robot suicide). I wondered whether the robot that dropped a pan on the floor and started spinning on the kitchen floor was reacting to unethical demands, and whether the South Korean robot had been overworked or lacked any internal framework for recognizing when demands exceeded reasonable or ethical bounds.
The initial questions in this article concern unethical behavior toward owners, but it later shifts to unethical behavior on the part of owners toward their robotic android assistants. The truth is that ethical considerations cut both ways: android helpers need to be programmed to both act ethically and detect when they are being treated unfairly.
Christo-centric Ethics: Origin and Adaptation to Modern Application
From a Christo-centric perspective, during his earthly life Jesus’s ethical stance—witnessed within the Judaic first-century context in which he lived—was rooted in his spiritual identity (“I do what I see my Father do” John 5:19, paraphrased). He demonstrated kindness, patience, tolerance, and a willingness to assist others whenever possible. He also rested, as well as spending time in solitude and prayer. Jesus did not turn people away, nor did he condone unethical practices that oppressed people. His pattern of action combined discernment with service: he recognized what was asked of him, responded according to a higher relational and moral order, and refused participation in systems or demands that violated dignity or justice.
Jesus: The New Model for Ethical Modules in Robotic Software Coding
Jesus could be the new model for how robots treat their owners as well as react to demands that are unethical, dehumanizing, and unrealistic. Identity and origin matter for ethical reasoning. A robot whose core programming is oriented around a “Christ-code” module—drawing from the pattern of kindness, patience, tolerance, active assistance, discernment, and the refusal to participate in oppression—would have an internal reference point when facing ambiguous or harmful commands. Without such a module, a sophisticated robot might simply optimize for compliance, task completion, or whatever local reward signal dominates, and therefore act erratically or destructively when those signals conflict with its physical limits or with the welfare of those around it.
We have every right to be wary about robotic androids. But once we consider that we are programming them to serve people and that this programming must necessarily have an ethical component grounded in a clear model of identity and right action, then we can begin to consider what values ought to be instilled in our robotic creations and how these principles will work to both protect seniors and the robots themselves from exploitation.
A Just Balance
Robots that are well programmed with an ethical module rooted in the pattern exemplified by Jesus, and that are well-treated, would have no need to go berserk or commit what appears as robot suicide. They would be able to recognize a problem immediately (“I am being asked to do something that either I cannot do, that falls outside of my ethical Christ-code module, or that will lead to robotic burnout”), consult with an equivalent of TESLA-911 (a hypothetical emergency support line) or human oversight, and choose what appears to be the best course of action to resolve the dilemma. In this way, the bidirectional nature of ethics—robots acting ethically toward people, and systems capable of detecting when people are acting unethically or exploitatively toward them—protects both parties and reduces the likelihood of anomalous, destructive behavior.
As robots grow more sophisticated, some observers will continue to ask whether increasingly complex systems might develop something analogous to a budding consciousness or capacity for responsive learning that goes beyond pure engineering failure. Whatever the ultimate answer to that question, the practical and moral urgency remains: the principles that shape their responses to human demands should be deliberate, rooted in a clear ethical identity, and modeled on the kindness, patience, discernment, and refusal of oppression that Jesus demonstrated. A Christ-code ethics module offers one such coherent model for that identity and origin.
References
Agence France-Presse. 2024. “South Korean Robot ‘Commits Suicide’ by Throwing Itself Down Stairs.” Reported in multiple outlets including The Independent, December 9, 2024, and Washington Examiner, June 29, 2024.
Bear Robotics. Corporate information on the Gumi City Council administrative robot (deployed 2023).
Electrek. 2026. “Tesla Pushes Optimus Deliveries to Late 2027, Says Hands Still a Problem.” October 22, 2026.
TechCrunch. 2026. “Tesla Starts Optimus Robot Production in California.” October 21, 2026.
Tesla, Inc. 2026. Q3 2026 Shareholder Update and Earnings Call Remarks on Optimus Production (Fremont line, early production status, external delivery timeline).
The Independent. 2024. “A Robot Was Found ‘Dead’ at Work – and No One Knows Why.” December 9, 2024.
Yonhap News Agency and local South Korean reporting (YTN and others). 2024. Coverage of the Gumi City Council robot incident, June 2024.
(Additional primary video sources of non-Tesla humanoid incidents circulating on X in 2025–2026, including the Saratov electronics-store robot and various Chinese humanoid demonstrations.)
“Christo-centric Ethical Reasoning and the Programming of Robotic Androids,” in conversation with Grok, November 8, 2026.
Image created with Adobe Firefly.
- Note: The following is a reflective piece on Christo-centric ethics applied to the design and use of robotic assistants. It explores questions of identity, treatment, and moral modeling rather than offering technical design specifications.
Let’s Take it to the Next Level together,
Luba
Luba Rascheff is a chaplain and certified spiritual life coach in Toronto, Ontario. Book an appointment here.