Skip to content

MORAL RESPONSIBILITY AND HUMAN VALUES IN THE AGE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: AN AFRICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ANALYSIS OF NATION BUILDING

Jul 2026 · COOU Journal of Arts and Humanities · 0 citations

TL;DR

It is suggested that ethical reflection on AI in Africa must remain oriented toward the fragile work of nation building, and responsible technological adoption depends less on perfecting accountability structures than on sustained moral attention to how technologies quietly reorganize relationships, shift public values, and redistribute the conditions for living together.

Abstract

Artificial intelligence settles into decision-making systems that increasingly shape public life governance algorithms, economic coordination platforms, resource allocation. The ethical languages used to assess these systems, however, don’t always translate well. What counts as responsibility in contexts where personhood has never been reducible to individual autonomy? Where moral standing is relational, situated, inherited? These aren’t minor adjustments to existing frameworks. They’re questions about whether the frameworks themselves are adequate. This paper reflects on AI through African philosophical perspectives, particularly communitarian thought, asking how moral responsibility might be rethought when agency is distributed across humans, machines, and institutional arrangements. The discussion doesn’t aim for a comprehensive theory. It lingers instead on friction points moments where accountability seems to thin out, where the language of responsibility begins to strain under conditions it wasn’t designed for. In some cases, what’s needed isn’t clearer rules but a different kind of attentiveness. Drawing on ideas of shared life and social obligation, the paper suggests that ethical reflection on AI in Africa must remain oriented toward the fragile work of nation building. The argument unfolds cautiously, resisting programmatic conclusions. Responsible technological adoption, it proposes, depends less on perfecting accountability structures than on sustained moral attention to how technologies quietly reorganize relationships, shift public values, and redistribute the conditions for living together.

View source

Similar papers

Review Open access Jul 2026

Artificial Intelligence Governance and the Future of Human Societies: Dignity, Meaning and Civilizational Responsibility

The Anthropological, Spiritual and Civilizational (ASC) Framework is proposed as a diagnostic heuristic for extending trustworthy AI toward dignity, truth, social justice and humane futures, which requires future empirical and expert validation.

Carlos Alberto Echeverría Mayorga, Marta Irene Flores Polanco, José Miguel Esperanza Amaya · 0 citations
Aug 2026

Artificial intelligence, work, and structural inequality: Why human-centric AI requires institutional architecture, not just ethics.

The article demonstrates how labour markets and migration governance function as "stress-test" domains in which continuous classification, automated risk assessment, worker scoring, and fragmented data environments can amplify existing structural inequalities.

A. Sinchev, Svetlana Bekmambetova · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

The Architecture of Moral Responsibility: Re-Structuring Moral Blame to fill in the Responsibility gap

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence into decision-making processes has intensified questions about how responsibility should be understood within socio-technical systems. Although debates surrounding the responsibility gap have identified important challenges for existing models of responsibility, they often leave underexamined the internal structure of responsibility itself, treating it as a one-dimensional concept despite comprising multiple analytically distinct normative relations. This paper argues that a more adequate account can be developed by drawing on Gary Watson’s distinction between attributability and accountability, together with his later elaboration of responsibility in terms of attributability, accountability, answerability, and culpability. These distinctions provide the basis for analysing responsibility as a multi-layered structure composed of distinct but related normative dimensions. This perspective makes it possible to examine responsibility under conditions of technological mediation without attributing moral agency or moral responsibility to artificial intelligence systems. Building on this framework, I develop eight sub-dimensions of blame designed to capture how responsibility relations are differentiated and reconfigured within socio-technical systems. The resulting account reconceives the responsibility gap not as a single problem, but as a set of structurally distinct layers between responsibility relations. The paper’s contribution is to provide a structured analytical framework for mapping these relations with greater precision, thereby clarifying how responsibility is organised in socio-technical environments while preserving human and institutional actors as the primary bearers of accountability and culpability.

Vipra Chopra · 0 citations
Open access Jul 2026

Beyond Human Oversight: Cognitive Sovereignty in Global Governance Frameworks for Agentic Artificial Intelligence

This qualitative study conducts a comparative document analysis of ten influential governance instruments issued by UNESCO, the OECD, the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology, the United Kingdom, the Group of Seven, and Singapore.

Kwan-Hong Tan · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Artificial Intelligence Ethics through the Lens of Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah: Constructing a Normative Framework for Civilized Technology Governance

The study contributes an operational, value-based model that complements rather than displaces existing regulatory approaches, offering developers, regulators, and Shariah boards a design vocabulary for anticipating harm before deployment.

Maman Supardi, Hilmiy Hanif, Mursyid Rahman et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Intelligence beyond knowledge: control, architecture, and the structural law of artificial agency

The paper formulates the Control Responsibility Principle (CRP), which shifts AI ethics from a focus on what systems know to a focus on how their behavior is governed, who holds authority over that governance, and how such authority is to be justified, distributed, and contested.

Huiwen Han · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.