Aug 2026· Scientia et Fides· 0 citations· 24 references
TL;DR
In order to live well in an AI-based society, designing technically ethical systems, in the spirit of consequentialism, is not enough; rather, it is essential to cultivate citizens who, as AI users, are endowed with virtues and, first and foremost, the virtue of prudence.
Abstract
This study examines how to channel the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) toward the common good, emphasizing the ethical responsibility of those who program, regulate, and use it. Assuming a classical Aristotelian-Thomist perspective, our paper argues that, lacking intelligence and will in the philosophical sense, AI cannot be a moral agent nor responsible for its actions. In response to the challenge of AI ethics, two ethical proposals are analyzed as candidates for the ethics required in an AI-based world: consequentialism and the ethics of intentional stance. We dismiss consequentialism due to its insufficiency for such a task and opt instead for an ethics of intentional action, inspired by Martin Rhonheimer’s work, which, ultimately, should be grounded in a metaphysical theory of action like Aquinas’s. Our research concludes that, in order to live well in an AI-based society, designing technically ethical systems, in the spirit of consequentialism, is not enough; rather, it is essential to cultivate citizens who, as AI users, are endowed with virtues and, first and foremost, the virtue of prudence.
The article demonstrates how attempts to decentre the human often reconstitute new forms of authority in attempts to decentre the human and examines the possibility of surpassing standard anthropocentric approaches in AI while maintaining a critical philosophical engagement with the structurally necessary yet precarious character of organizing principles.
This paper uses disparate examples of AI resistance and theoretical lenses to render explicit an underlying logic which connects varied forms of resistance, grounded in the ethical value(s) that effort can manifest, and reframe one side of the debate between embracers and resisters.
R. Downes, Rebecca Mines· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
This research raises broad questions regarding social and tech ethics in the Age of AI by asking what happens if AI systems acquire full autonomy as economic actors within a late capitalist economy, specifically as workers, capitalists, and consumers. Through a careful engagement with recent Marxian social theory and the speculative literature on “full automation,” the article builds a case that the analytical lens of labor displacement needs to be enlarged to encompass the displacement of capitalists and consumers as well as workers. We propose to rethink social and tech ethics from the standpoint of a renewed attention to the constitutions of these economic actors within the capitalist system. Such a rethinking can cast new light on what it means for AI systems to be designed and deployed more ethically within the contemporary global capitalist system. It further underlines the urgency of a cross-disciplinary dialogue between social theorists and the engineers, managers, and regulators who are shaping the trajectory of such systems and, accordingly, the prospects for ethical social and economic outcomes.
J. Schulz, Laura Robinson, Katia Moles· International journal of kno...· 0 citations
In a world in which one can hardly keep track of the developments in AI, even less so the impacts it is having in our world and our lives, it is quite easy to take for granted a series of assumptions – ethical, political, metaphysical etc. – on how to approach the problem of AI, taking the concerns and principles expressed by such assumptions to be universally shared. In this context, it becomes particularly important to question this presumed universality, showing that, quite often, the discussion around AI is dominated by philosophical notions, principles and values that are the expression not of a universal humanity, but rather of specific cultures, and gain prominence not due to their presumed universality, but to the geopolitical position these cultures have and the prevalence this gives them in the context of AI development and debate.
With this in mind, a book such as the Handbook of Global Philosophies on AI Ethics, edited by Naresh Singh and Ram B. Ramachandran, is a very welcome initiative, as it purports precisely to tackle over this issue, reminding us, as noted by the Foreword from Thomas Koulopoulow, that “we like to think of ethics and values as universal, but that is more of a comforting myth than a reality” (p. xi). In our review, we will thus not only present a brief overview of the book, but also a critical analysis of some of the main ideas presented in it, as well as how successful the book effectively is in contributing to show “how different philosophical traditions can help us navigate the ethical challenges of AI development with wisdom, nuance and genuine respect for human diversity”.
Lucas Nascimento Machado· Journal of Ethics and Emergi...· 0 citations
What is morality, and where does it come from? Ethics: Action, Power, and Moral Autonomy answers boldly: Morality cannot be understood solely as a code prescribed by nature or God. but the work of a being who must create meaning, responsibility, and value in a world that offers none ready-made. Tracing the long passage from nomos — the archaic order of fear, custom, and survival — to ethos, the freedom of a self that gives itself its own law, this book retells the birth of conscience as a profound anthropological transformation, where the inherited fog of mystery gives way to reason and obedience gives way to autonomy. Yet autonomy is not the end of the story. Drawing on Aristotle and Hegel, on existential thought and the Islamic ethics of amānah and akhlaq, it builds a vision of ethical life grounded in personality and conscience, sustained by an ontology of Love, and bound to others through justice — the "stone arch" that joins individual conscience to law, institutions, and the common good. Against the modern "invasion of things," which quietly surrenders human judgment to economic and technical machinery, this book makes an urgent case for the human being as a moral creator of the world: ethical life as an unfinished project, a workshop of human becoming in which dignity, justice, and meaning must be reclaimed again and again, toward a shared Planetary Ethos broad enough for all of humanity.
Every decision in human life is not merely the result of external circumstances; rather, a complex psychological, ethical, and intellectual process operates behind it. Often, a person chooses a particular course of action not because it is inherently righteous or ethical, but because they feel capable of executing it. It is this very ‘doability’ that gradually begins to serve as the basis for the action’s propriety, rationale, and moral legitimacy. Thus, the sense of ‘I can do this.’ gradually transforms into the conviction that ‘I should do this.’ The present study attempts to understand this psychological and philosophical process through a theoretical framework termed Doabilism. This theory analyzes the interrelationships among the sense of capability, feasibility, self-interest, the construction of justification, and rational argumentation within the human decision-making process. It suggests that in many situations, rather than serving as the initial source of a decision, reason becomes a means to justify pre-existing inclinations. The Indian philosophical tradition, especially the Srimad Bhagavad Gita, offers an alternative ethical paradigm to this tendency. According to the Gita, the basis of action should not be power or selfishness, but svadharma, buddhiyoga, selflessness and dharmabodh. The principle of unselfish action elevates man above the tendency of self-justification arising from the accomplishment of action and orients him towards duty, self-restraint and collection of the people. In this light, ‘Doabilism’ offers a descriptive account of human decisions, whereas the Gita’s principle of Nishkama Karma (selfless action) establishes their normative direction. The dialogue between the two not only provides an opportunity to reinterpret decision-making, ethics, and action within the Indian intellectual tradition but also creates a novel conceptual foundation for contemporary literary criticism, moral philosophy, and the study of human behavior.