Stafford 1
Matt Stafford
Mrs.Visser
Social Justice
Jan 31 2021
Artificial Intelligence, Ethical or Not?
Artificial Intelligence has taken over! Well not exactly. With the increase of
technology has come with the desire for artificial intelligence, or AI. Francois Chollet, AI
researcher at Google has shared his opinion on what AI truly means: a system’s
intelligence is its ability to adapt and improve when its surroundings change and to use
prior knowledge in new situations (Heath 3). In today’s society there are two different
types of artificial intelligence, narrow AI and general AI. Narrow AI has many different
applications in today’s world, such as virtual assistants, vision recognition systems for
self driving cars, interpreting satellite images and making a 3D model, and many more
new and emerging uses (Heath 12). In general, narrow AI is used for the automation of
tasks and can only be taught how to do defined tasks. On the other hand, general AI
has the capability to have human intelligence, being able to solve tasks and use prior
knowledge to develop solutions. However, this technology isn’t fully developed yet and
there are still questions posed about general AI. Using the ethical framework of the
Utilitarian approach, which is one that will provide the most benefit with the least amount
of harm, will determine if AI should be granted as being human and a living being. On
top of that, using the Catholic social teaching of The Life and Dignity of the Human
Person, which states that human life the dignity of the person are the basis for the
Stafford 2
morality of society, that every human being will always be more important than
materialistic things, the value of an institution is based on if it enhances or threatens the
life and dignity of the human person. This Catholic Social teaching will determine
whether AI is ethical. Artificial intelligence, otherwise known as AI, should be created
because of the benefits they provide to the human race; however, even though AI is
capable of being conscious, they shouldn’t be perceived as being human because of
the Life and Dignity of the Human Person and through the Utilitarian approach.
In the highly debated topic of AI one approach reasons that AI shouldn’t be treated
as a living being because AI can easily be manipulated and treating AI as a living being
would constitute them for having human rights. Jessica Jeng, an AI specialist argues
that, “two large factors make them inherently nonhuman. The first being that they are
not a combination of their parents' genetics since they are manufactured at a factory or
lab, and the second being that AI cannot reproduce offspring'' (Jeng 6). Jeng argues
that AI cannot be considered human because they don’t reproduce like humans do and
they aren’t biologically human which doesn't make them living. Looking at this through
the perspective of the Catholic Social Teaching of the Life and Dignity of the Human
person, AI would be considered a materialistic object meaning they never could be
considered to be human or living. Another point this side argues is that when AI reaches
the point of having full consciousness we as humans won’t truly know their intentions,
and already seen in AI today they have been able to lie and deceive humans. If AI was
given rights and considered living this side argues that, “What if they believe they are
superior to humans and want more rights to humans? There would be nothing humans
could do to stop it. Robots would be able to reason and work at a rate hundreds of times
Stafford 3
faster than humans, there’s nothing stopping them from becoming smart enough to
realize their inferiority to humans and push for more rights” (Jeng 9). Jeng argues that if
AI is given rights and considered as living there is nothing stopping them from
overtaking humans. Using the Utilitarian approach the bad easily outweighs the good,
the human race is potentially at risk when giving AI rights and labeling them as living.
Overall, this approach argues that AI shouldn’t be considered living because they don’t
biologically or legally resemble humans, however not everyone holds this approach.
The opposite side argues for a viewpoint that AI is qualified for being living because
they are capable of becoming conscious that AI should be entitled to human rights. This
view uses the utilitarian approach when valuing the ethics of AI. Mathias Risse from
Harvard argues this approach and states that, “If the mind just is a complex algorithm,
then we may eventually have little choice but to grant the same moral status to certain
machines that humans have” (Risse 5). Risse argues that if humans and AI both have
the same consciousness then over time the bridge between humans and robots will be
lesser, and if robots and humans constitute as having the same complex mind structure
then there is no justice for the AI without giving them human rights. Using the viewpoint
from AI and humans, the most beneficial decision is granting human rights for AI
because of the connections between them. Risse also argues that humans would look
at AI differently if, “we grew up with a robot nanny whose machine-learning capacities
enable it to attend to us in ways far beyond what parents do” ( Risse 7). Risse argues
that AI can be used for the betterment of society and that it is only just to give AI rights
because they provide so much for the human race when used correctly. Using the
utilitarian approach giving AI rights would let AI better society and have the potential to
Stafford 4
solve many problems in today’s society which would outweigh the bad. Overall, Risse
holds a viewpoint that AI with consciousness should be considered living and gain
human rights using the ethical viewpoint of the utilitarian approach.
The Catholic Church will value the life and dignity of the human person over AI, the
Church will always support anything that will benefit human life and God’s creation,
consequently AI consciousness cannot be fully explained or controlled which makes the
Church oppose it. AI shouldn’t be considered living and shouldn’t be considered for
human rights. Using the Utilitarian approach AI isn’t suited for human ethics and isn't
programmed or capable of understanding the morals and ethics of a situation. For
example, Pope Francis states that, “The terms conceal the fact that — in spite of the
useful fulfillment of servile tasks, functional automatisms remain qualitatively distant
from the human prerogatives of knowledge and action. And therefore they can become
socially dangerous" (Jenkins 8). Pope Francis doesn’t agree with AI with full
consciousness because their intent is unknown, and until that intent can be controlled or
monitored AI isn’t fully supported in the Catholic Church. Without the intent of the AI
their actions can be detrimental to the human race, and instead of helping the human
race can actually be damaging. According to the Catholic social teaching The Life and
Dignity of the Human person which according to USCCB.com encompasses that every
human person should be supported, that people will always outweigh materialistic
items, and the value of an institution is valued based on whether it is beneficial or
detrimental to human life and with the uncertainty of AI’s intent considering them living
and granting them rights can cause the downfall of the human race.
Stafford 5
Overall, AI is essential for human progression and vital to the betterment of society;
even though AI is capable of becoming conscious they shouldn’t gain human rights or
be considered living. Using the Utilitarian approach and the Catholic social teaching of
The Life and Dignity of the Human Person considering AI as living can cause harm to
the life of the human person.
Stafford 6
Works Cited
“Life and Dignity of the Human Person.” USCCB, United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops, 2021, www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-socialteaching/life-and-dignity-of-the-human-person.
Peng, Jessica. How Human Is AI and Should AI Be Granted Rights?, WordPress, 4
Dec. 2018,
blogs.cuit.columbia.edu/jp3864/2018/12/04/how-human-is-ai-and-should-
ai-be-granted-rights/.
Jenkins, Jack. “Vatican, Catholic Colleges Weigh in on Emerging AI Ethics Debate.”
National Catholic Reporter, National Catholic Reporter, 25 May 2019,
www.ncronline.org/news/people/vatican-catholic-colleges-weigh-emerging-ai-ethicsdebate.
Risse, Mathias. Human Rights and Artificial Intelligence An Urgently Needed Agenda,
CARR CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS POLICY, May 2018,
carrcenter.hks.harvard.edu/files/cchr/files/humanrightsai_designed.pdf#page6.
Stafford 7