NTodd: If Aquinas said for human acts to be good, they must accord with the rule of divine love, what would he say about AI?
Claude:
Based on Aquinas's principles, he would likely evaluate AI through the lens of whether its creation, design, and use accord with "the rule of divine love" (regula divinae dilectionis). From the sources provided, Aquinas makes a key analogy: **"manufactured goods are good and right when they measure up to a standard"** - just as human acts must harmonize with divine love, so too must human works align with this standard.
He explicitly states that "any human work is right and virtuous when it harmonizes with the standard of divine love." ## Aquinas would likely argue that:
1. **AI as a "manufactured good" or human work** must be evaluated by whether it accords with divine charity. Since AI is a product of human action and artifice, it falls under the category of human works that must "measure up to a standard."
2. **The creators and users of AI** bear moral responsibility. The sources emphasize that "for human acts to be good, they must harmonize with the standard of divine love." Therefore, those who design, deploy, and use AI must ensure these activities align with charity.
3. **The effects matter**: The sources note that divine love "produces four very desirable effects in man" starting with spiritual life. Aquinas would likely ask: Does AI promote or hinder spiritual life? Does it transform users toward God or toward "vile and perishable things"?
4. **Charity requires action**: As stated, "charity is not idle" and shows itself through "observance of divine commandments." AI should be evaluated by whether it helps or hinders the fulfillment of both affirmative commandments (promoting love) and prohibitive ones (avoiding perverse action). In essence, **AI itself would be morally neutral**, but its goodness depends entirely on whether human acts surrounding it accord with divine love.
No comments:
Post a Comment