2026· Rechtsphilosophie· Vol 12, pp. 212-235· 0 citations
Abstract
Is the human predictable by AI, and if so, should we allow it? This paper examines the relationship between these empirical and normative questions from the perspective of the right to free development of personality enshrined in Art. 2 of the German Constitution. Based on an analysis of 50 decisions of the German Constitutional Court, I advocate for the recognition of a right to unpredictability derived from Art. 2(1) of the Constitution. I argue that, even if humans statistically follow patterns, the freedom to act against all probabilities is worth protecting.
It is suggested that if the view is right, a certain type of moral risk can be averted since researchers are unlikely to stumble into accidentally creating AI models that are conscious, and a new form of AI risk that arises from the view.
Justin Tiehen, A. Tubert· Journal of Consciousness Stu...· 0 citations
The article analyses changing attitudes towards lying, linking its greater ease in modern times to the weakening of the traditional connection between words and reality and to the growing pragmatic and expressive functions of language. Czeżowski also argues that the moral condemnation of lying has become less severe, as its evaluation increasingly depends on the purpose and broader situation in which lying is used as a means of action.
From a philosophical perspective, this book considers whether artificial intelligence (AI) undermines human autonomy. Are we becoming increasingly controlled by external forces when AI makes decisions for us? Characteristics such as artificial autonomy, opacity and extreme speed could mark a tipping point at which self-determination gives way to external control. Responsibility becomes questionable when decisions are not transparent and human control is lost. At the same time, autonomous AI systems make it difficult to assess the truth and reliability of information. Ultimately, the book views AI as a form of 'smart power' that subtly—and often almost imperceptibly—influences our thinking, judgement and actions.
Gosseries argues that we have moral duties to future people, since we should not discriminate against people based on when they live—that all people, at all times, have an equal right to the basic requirements of a good life. I argue that in making this claim Gosseries is committed to the real existence of these future people, and in making this commitment he is also committed to a metaphysical view where the future is fixed and unchanging. This introduces a problem that Gosseries does not address: that a fixed future makes any kind of moral deliberation pointless.
Andrew Pavelich· Ethics, Politics & Socie...· 0 citations
Short abstract Human societies consistently develop complex, near-universal traditions that exhibit striking similarities. These “super-attractors” span magic and religion (e.g., shamanism, supernatural punishment beliefs), esthetics (e.g., heroic tales, dance songs), and social institutions (e.g., justice, corporate groups), and collectively constitute the “cultural manifold.” Here, I argue that the components of the cultural manifold develop primarily through “subjective selection,” or the production and selective retention of variants evaluated as useful for satisfying goals. Whereas previous explanations emphasize objective individual or group-level benefits, I highlight how subjective selection drives complex cultural convergences worldwide, attesting to the importance of subjective selection in shaping human culture. Long abstract Human societies reliably develop complex cultural traditions with striking similarities. These “super-attractors” span the domains of magic and religion (e.g., shamanism, supernatural punishment beliefs), esthetics (e.g., heroic tales, dance songs), and social institutions (e.g., justice, corporate groups) and collectively constitute what I call the “cultural manifold.” The cultural manifold represents a set of equilibrium states of social and cultural evolution: hypothetically cultureless humans placed in a novel and empty habitat will eventually produce most or all of these complex traditions. Although the study of the super-attractors has been characterized by explanatory pluralism, particularly an emphasis on processes that favor individual- or group-level benefits, I here argue that their development is primarily underlain by a process I call “subjective selection,” or the production and selective retention of variants that are evaluated as instrumentally useful for satisfying goals. Humans around the world are motivated toward similar ends, such as healing illness, explaining misfortune, calming infants, and inducing others to cooperate. As we shape, tweak, and preferentially adopt culture that appears most effective for achieving these ends, we drive the convergence of complex traditions worldwide. The predictable development of the cultural manifold reflects the capacity of humans to sculpt traditions that apparently provide them with what they want, attesting to the importance of subjective selection in shaping human culture.
Manvir Singh· Behavioral and Brain Science...· 3 citations
Short abstract For decades, we have known that developmental psychological findings primarily describe Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic (WEIRD) samples, unrepresentative of the developmental landscape of all humans. A new approach advocates for a Worldwide, In situ, Local, and Diverse (WILD: Newson et al., 2021) psychology. Here we evaluate the extent (Bard, 2022) to which developmental theories are WEIRD or WILD, by considering potential bias in one bottom-up theory (Shared Intentionality) and in one top-down theory (Attachment). Theories drive research and we provide Five Steps to Increase Inclusivity (from Bard et al., 2021) that will contribute to re-building developmental psychological theories to embrace WILDness. Long abstract Most scientists are aware that developmental databases derive primarily from Western, middle-class samples, but fewer are cognizant that developmental theories can be similarly biased. There is urgency in revising developmental theories, both scientifically (embracing diversity is essential to the study of human psychology) and applied (it is damaging to apply WEIRD standards/methods/theories to evaluate development in the multitude of non-WEIRD contexts). We evaluate the extent to which two prominent developmental theories are inclusive. We find that Shared Intentionality Theory is based on a WEIRD bias in the foundational databases: the core constructs lack culturally diverse data, undermining claims that this theory explains human-general social cognition. In Attachment Theory, we illuminate the lack of inclusivity in the core assumptions and resulting claims of the meaning and measure of the attachment system: this theory excludes cultural diversity in social-emotional constructs focused on communal orientations (e.g., interdependence, attachment networks) found in many people of the Global South and neglects culture-specific adaptive behavior patterns. Acknowledging the lack of inclusivity at the level of theory is necessary. We urge researchers to take a more WILD approach: obtain Worldwide samples, study development In situ, focus on Local cultural practices and ethnotheories, and consider development as Diverse. Being WILD entails attending to inclusivity during the entire research process, from framing the research questions to interpreting the data (e.g., respecting all adaptive behaviors in development). Five Steps for Increasing Inclusivity can be used as a practical guide to decenter psychological theories from their current WEIRD mindset.
Kim A. Bard, H. Keller, David A Leavens· Behavioral and Brain Science...· 7 citations· ⚡1