From the wikipedia link:

> In Czech, robota means forced labour of the kind that serfs had to perform on their masters' lands and is derived from rab, meaning "slave".

Well, 'robota' means 'labour' (see German 'Arbeit', it's the same word), 'rab' (slave) is just one of derivatives from it. Another is 'rebenok' (child, baby), so it's not such a sinister as it may seem from this article.

Source: I'm Slavic. )

I think if something is made of electronics and material parts the ethics are different. It's be like asking if someone bashing their motorcycle is the same as someone bashing their horse.

And, while an interesting footnote for the English word robot, that in Slavic languages whence it's deriven it can refer to worker/servant/serf/slave is beside the point.

But the difference is in reaction. We can emphasize with the horse because - (A) It can show that it's suffering. (B) You can't repair the horse perfectly yet if the damage is beyond certain level. (C) Other reasons for why we consider it living and unique.

If motorcycle is able to fullfil all of them, then what.

Gotta ask what makes machine a machine.

In TV show Westworld, early robots are mechanical, but later replaced by biological ones. Does it make torturing early models any less or more bad, considering that they behave the same?

It’s probably like eating animals. At one point there was little thought about it in terms of ethics for most civilizations, but then gradually things become fuzzy.

Although that being said, it’s interesting that definitions have such a huge impact. For example you can be an extreme vegan but also be okay with abortion (note I’m not anti abortion rights) just pointing out how a definition can affect human ethics among people who are very cautious about affecting living things.