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.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) governance has converged around transparency, accountability, safety, privacy, fairness, human rights, human oversight and risk management. However, this vocabulary remains limited when AI is understood as a sociotechnical force shaping agency, work, truth, democratic trust, meaning and long-term human futures. This article is a critical conceptual review, with a structured Scopus-based mapping of 48 peer-reviewed articles, a critical documentary analysis of six international AI governance frameworks and a supplementary interpretive engagement with Magnifica Humanitas. Using a PRISMA-informed flow diagram for transparent reporting and abductive thematic synthesis, the study identifies four fragmented literatures: AI ethics and governance; anthropological accounts of dignity, autonomy, agency and vulnerability; spiritual and theological approaches to meaning and moral formation; and civilizational analyses of democracy, war, transhumanism and existential risk. The findings do not suggest that these concerns are absent from AI ethics; rather, they show that they remain dispersed and are not consistently translated into governance criteria. This article proposes the Anthropological, Spiritual and Civilizational (ASC) Framework as a diagnostic heuristic for extending trustworthy AI toward dignity, truth, social justice and humane futures. The framework is conceptual and requires future empirical and expert validation.
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.· West Science Islamic Studies· 0 citations
The HCSAIGF contributes to AI governance research by providing an integrated explanatory architecture and offers a conceptual basis for future empirical research and more coherent governance practices.
Emre İmamoğlu· Journal of Perspectives in M...· 0 citations
An academic adaptation of Patrick Rudolf Dannacher's presentation at the 10th Jakarta Geopolitical Forum 2026 is presented, examining Indonesia's strategic position in the evolving global AI landscape.
Patrick Rudolf Dannacher Dannacher· Proceeding Jakarta Geopoliti...· 1 citation
Fletcher’s agapeic framework may solve epistemic inequities in global AI discourse and fosters inclusive technology growth by fusing situational ethics with traditional African philosophies.
Oviemuno Egara, Bridget Oviemuno, Charles Elijah· Mathematics and Computer Sci...· 0 citations
The paper argues that algorithmic governance should not be assessed only by whether systems are accurate, explainable or compliant, but also by whether affected persons retain interpretive agency, contestatory power, relational recognition and meaningful participation in institutional life.
K. Tan· International Journal of Law...· 1 citation
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· Open Access Journal of Multi...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.