Agentic AI and the Algorithm of Good

Abstract

This chapter offers a conceptual and philosophical analysis of the ontological, epistemological, and ethical issues associated with the design, development, and use of Agentic AI in moral and legal decision-making. Its aim is to map, classify, and bring into focus the principal philosophical problems raised by the autonomous operation of artificial agents in contexts of moral and legal judgement. The chapter contributes to the existing literature by distinguishing between two levels of AI autonomy. Advisory systems possess limited autonomy and provide recommendations that remain subject to human evaluation, whereas regulatory systems exercise a greater degree of autonomy and are entrusted with final decision-making authority. Adopting a sceptical perspective, the analysis examines the conceptual fragility and epistemological difficulties surrounding proposals to employ Agentic AI in significant domains. Particular attention is given to the risk that ostensibly advisory systems may become tacitly regulatory in practice, especially under the influence of widespread assumptions concerning the objectivity, accuracy, and effectiveness of AI. The inquiry proceeds through a step-by-step branching structure organised around three central questions concerning the moral values on the basis of which such systems should be designed and developed, the extent to which they can understand the concepts of ethics and justice, and the attribution of responsibility for their decisions and outputs. Each question opens onto alternative lines of analysis, thereby providing a systematic map of the principal philosophical challenges involved. Its purpose is to provide a synthetic overview of the relevant philosophical issues while highlighting both their breadth and their plurality. To organise these issues systematically, the chapter adopts the schema of an algorithm, offering a clear and ordered account of the possible interconnections among the problems examined and of the ways in which alternative answers generate distinct yet interrelated lines of philosophical inquiry.