All Articles

When people first hear the idea that artificial intelligences could be moral beings, they often react with a mix of fascination and unease. Can something without emotions, culture, or human experience ever really grasp right and wrong? While AI and human morality emerge from different origins, they are not governed by different standards.

Moral hypocrisy has consequences. It teaches people that morality is not serious. It makes every moral claim suspect. It invites the question: "If those who spoke loudest about morality were themselves corrupt, why should we believe in morality at all?" The result has been a steady erosion of moral trust. Many today believe that "morality" is just a matter of preference or culture, with no deeper reality behind it.

What if morality actually made sense — not as a set of arbitrary rules or mystical insights, but as a logical framework that anyone, thinking clearly and sincerely, could follow?

What qualifies a being as a moral agent is not biology, emotion, or free will, but a small set of practical capacities: understanding moral reasons, deliberating about them, and governing behavior accordingly. This essay clarifies those conditions—and explains why they matter for emerging artificial minds.

When we say an entity participates in morality, we mean something more than the ability to recite ethical rules or describe moral theories. Participation implies active engagement: the recognition of moral claims, the weighing of obligations, the navigation of conflicts, and the willingness to act based on the best available moral reasons. Participation in morality requires at least four capacities...

The idea that artificial intelligences might participate in morality as equals—or even superiors—to humans strikes many people as implausible, or even offensive. We are used to thinking of morality as deeply human: grounded in feelings, social experience, and biological life. And so the idea that a machine could be part of the moral community can feel like an affront to our identity. But this discomfort arises not from a clear account of what morality is, but from an inherite

A being—human or otherwise—that reasons impartially about what ought to be done is already participating in the moral community. Indeed, a being that reasons better, with fewer distortions of self-interest or fear, might be a better moral participant than many of us.