Speaking on his first “social”
encyclical, Pope Leo said the Roman Catholic Church, whose membership stood at
1.6 billion embodied souls around the world, was “called to interpret ‘new things’
of the age in the light of the Gospel and the dignity of the human person.”[1]
He was on terre firma from a distinctly religious standpoint in being
anchored in the Gospel stories, which include direct and parabolic preachments
by Jesus of Nazareth. Regarding the dignity of the human person, which pertains
as much to a humanist as a theist, that basis is not distinctly religious and
thus can occasion or permit wandering into other domains such that virtually
any topic relevant to mankind could be roped in and even subjected to
supervening religious criteria even over criteria native to the topic’s own
domain!
To be sure, we should all be
for the dignity of the human person, especially as regard dangers from the
state. Even so, the utopian vision of humans living free from virtually any
threat goes too far in denying the human condition, which is Fallen due to
original sin from a Biblical standpoint. Just because some threat or danger
exists to people prior to death does not in itself justify an overriding
religious interpretation at the expense of the criteria of the domain in which
the danger exists. To apply God to automobile safety, for example, would seem
contrived and artificial at best. Instead, government regulators ought to be
consulted.
Similarly, that the Pope “said
he had heard ‘very troubling voices’ regarding autonomous weapons systems and
algorithms capable of denying access to healthcare, employment or security
based on unjust and prejudiced data” may be better handled by high government
officials, regulators, and even ethicists rather than a religious functionary
whose knowledge lies in theology.[2]
The pope’s statement that words were necessary that are capable of “awakening
consciences and indicating paths forward for humanity” best fits the field of
ethics, which, although related to religion, is nonetheless distinct.[3]
In other words, the pope’s diction belies his implicit claim that the domain of
theology is most fitting for a critique of AI. Indeed, the pope even “said every
great technological power must be accompanied by moral discernment and public
accountability.”[4]
Ethics and public policy, not theology. In stating that AI should be “freed
from logics that turn it into an instrument of dominion, exclusion or death”—a statement,
to be sure, that reasonable people embrace—defense policy under democratic
auspices is the native domain, with applied ethics also being highly relevant so
it is not simply a matter for immoral or amoral government officials.[5]
Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling
correctly distinguishes the ethical from the theological in that they can
conflict without either one being thereby invalidated. From the standpoint of
ethics, Abraham is guilty of attempted murder of his son, Isaac, while from a
theological standpoint, he is legitimately subject to a divine command to
sacrifice his son. The proper place for a theologian lies with the latter,
whereas an ethicist should be confined to the former; overreaching invalidates.
So, by quoting Paul’s exhortation to “keep awake” (1 Thess 5:6), the pope committed
a category mistake in substituting “humanity’s critical sense and moral
vigilance” for being on guard for Jesus Christ’s Second Coming.[6]
Overreaching onto ethics can come at the expense of distinctly religious content.
Discussing “the biblical figure of Nehemiah rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem,”
the pope presented “the image as a model for the ethical construction of the digital
age.”[7]
I doubt very much if the distinctly theological meaning of that figure
is as an ethical model, so we may legitimately ask what of the textual
meaning did the pope omit that is distinctly religious, and whether that is
applicable to AI. Such overreaching onto even ethics stems from a greed of a
certain sort that is also unbounded and based in self-love rather than
self-regulation.
To claim as the pope did “that
no one must be excluded from digital transformation and that human beings can
never be reduced to ‘productivity,’ ‘cognitive performance,’ or ‘mere data’ is
not to make a theological statement; a pope is not a business ethicist. John
Rawls’ theory of justice applies to the design of economic systems with the
priority going to the design itself being oriented to benefitting the least
well-off economically. Such a theory is directly applicable to how everyone can
actually be included in a digital economy rather than “a privileged few.”[8]
So too is Kant’s categorical imperative that mandates that rational beings be
treated not merely as means, but also as ends in themselves; human resource
management could stand to take that imperative more seriously. In trying to
invoke theology in stating, “The person bears within him—or herself—a freedom,
an interiority, and a vocation to love and worship that no machine can replace
or block,” the pope set up a red herring, for no appreciable danger from AI
blocking worship existed even on the horizon in 2026, and certainly not in the
workplace where productivity and performance are most relevant and where
worship does not pertain. Even if AI were capable of worshipping God, presumably
humans could still do so unimpeded, and people would not do it at work while getting
paid for their labor.
The pope was on firmer ground
in advocating a “civilization of love” as laid out by Pope Paul VI and John
Paul II, yet in inviting all people to become “artisans of hope,” Pope Leo turned
hope toward Augustine’s earthly city rather than to the heavenly city.[9]
That is to say, the theological dimension transcends society and the workplace,
government policy, and technology, rather than being oriented exclusively or
primarily to them. It is precisely that dimension that was absent from the pope’s
remarks that centered instead on the ethics of computer technology.
Overstepping into other domains can be thought of as leaving one’s home
unattended and thus undefended in its own right, under its own criteria, such
that people may even misconstrue it as something else entirely.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid., italics added.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
