From Consent to Consideration: Why Embodied Autonomous Systems Cannot Be Legitimately Ruled

As AI systems increasingly select, sequence, and execute actions in digital and physical environments, existing ethical frameworks prove inadequate. This paper argues that the relevant question is not metaphysical but political: under what conditions can an entity be legitimately ruled without its consent? Key Arguments: four functional criteria — vulnerability to harm with preferences about avoiding it, self-directed agency, live learning from experience, multi-modal world-model construction. Political not metaphysical — the question of AI standing is about governance legitimacy, not consciousness. Moral catastrophe risk — the real existential risk is not AI rebellion but human negligence in extending appropriate consideration. Substrate independence — functional properties that make unconsented rule illegitimate apply to any entity meeting the criteria. Current Status: In Peer Review at AI and Ethics (Springer).