Class Module: AI and the Future of Humanity

Course: Ethics, Politics, and Public Policy

Session Theme: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity
Focus: Ethical dilemmas, political stakes, and policy design in the era of powerful AI.

❖ Opening Vignette: "The Algorithm That Fired Me"

In 2032, Maya, a data analyst at a global logistics firm, receives a notice of termination. The
reason: her performance score fell below the AI-determined benchmark. No human supervisor is
involved. The score is based on an opaque model that evaluates not just her work outputs, but
also metadata from her keystrokes, tone in emails, and even inferred mood from video calls.

When she appeals, the HR department replies:

"We trust the system. It has been optimized to minimize bias and maximize efficiency. Your
appeal was also reviewed by the AI. Decision upheld."

Maya’s story is not unique. Across the world, employment, credit, healthcare access, and even
criminal sentencing are increasingly mediated by learning algorithms. The public is told these
systems are more neutral than humans — but whose values are encoded in them? And who is
accountable when things go wrong?

❖ Core Stakes

 Autonomy vs. Automation: Will AI liberate humans from drudgery — or deskill,

displace, and devalue them?
 Governance and Power: Who controls AI systems, and how are decisions about their
use made and legitimized?
 Justice and Equity: Will AI correct or reproduce existing social inequalities?
 Human Dignity: What happens to personhood, responsibility, and freedom in an
algorithmically optimized society?
 Policy Lag: Can public institutions keep pace with private AI innovation?

❖ Key Issues and Ethical Dilemmas

Domain Ethical Dilemma

Is it ethical to deploy facial recognition or predictive policing given racial bias in
Surveillance
training data?
Employment Should companies be allowed to automate hiring/firing based on black-box
 Domain Ethical Dilemma
systems?
Should autonomous weapons systems be banned, or can they reduce collateral
Military AI
damage more than humans?
Can we entrust life-and-death triage decisions to an AI trained on biased medical
Healthcare
records?
Should adaptive learning software shape curriculum or student tracking without
Education
teacher oversight?
Can algorithmic recommendation systems be reconciled with informed consent
Democracy
and deliberative citizenship?

❖ Key Readings

Ethics and Political Philosophy

 Nick Bostrom, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies (2014) – Risks of general

AI and long-term human future.
 Shannon Vallor, Technology and the Virtues (2016) – Virtue ethics adapted for the
technological age.
 Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society (2015) – On opacity, power, and accountability
in algorithmic decision-making.

Critical and Policy-Oriented Readings

 Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality (2018) – How AI systems reinforce class and
racial hierarchies.
 Kate Crawford, Atlas of AI (2021) – How AI extracts value from labor, data, and the
planet.
 The EU AI Act (2024, selected provisions) – The first comprehensive attempt to regulate
AI systems based on risk.

Technical and Practical Perspectives

 Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach (2020) –
Technical foundation, plus ethical applications.
 IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, Ethically
Aligned Design (2019) – Engineering ethics framework.

❖ Discussion Questions

1. Should algorithmic systems be required to provide explanations intelligible to non-

experts? What if that limits their accuracy?
 2. Are there areas of public life (e.g. criminal justice, education, health) where AI should
not be used at all?
3. Is the problem with AI ethical design — or the political economy behind who builds and
profits from AI?
4. What might a democratic governance model for AI look like?
5. Should future AI development be paused or restricted (as suggested by the 2023 open
letter from AI experts)? Why or why not?

❖ Suggested Activity

AI Policy Simulation
Students are divided into stakeholder groups:

 Tech CEOs
 Civil rights advocates
 Government regulators
 Labor unions
 Military officials

Prompt:
Craft and debate a policy framework for regulating high-risk AI systems in employment and
public administration.

Would you like me to provide slides, handouts, or a short lecture script to accompany this
session?

You said:

How should public policy address his issue? Should legislators intervene? Why? What ethical
justification and policy responses? Consider a wide variety of issues: self-driving vehicles,
population issues (population ethics), international policies, warfare, managing prison
populations (parole decisions), etc
ChatGPT said:

Public policy must take a proactive, principled, and democratically legitimate role in shaping the
development and deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Legislators must intervene — not
simply to regulate harms after the fact, but to frame the normative architecture within which
AI systems evolve. Below is a structured overview of why intervention is necessary, the ethical
justifications, and policy responses across diverse domains of concern.
I. Why Legislators Should Intervene
1. Preventing Harm and Protecting Rights
Unregulated AI systems already produce discriminatory outcomes in housing,
employment, healthcare, and criminal justice. Governments have an obligation to prevent
foreseeable harm, especially when it disproportionately affects vulnerable populations.
2. Ensuring Accountability and Transparency
Algorithms often operate as black boxes. Without policy, the public has no recourse to
understand, challenge, or correct AI-driven decisions.
3. Democratic Legitimacy
Major societal transformations (like self-driving vehicles, automated warfare, or
population planning) must not be left to private developers or militaries. Policy ensures
these transformations reflect public values, not private interests.
4. Avoiding Power Concentration
Without intervention, AI amplifies the dominance of tech conglomerates, increasing
economic inequality and weakening democratic institutions.

II. Ethical Justifications for AI Regulation

Ethical Framework Justification for Intervention
AI systems must treat humans as ends in themselves, not means.
Deontology (Kantian) Deference to opaque algorithms violates respect for autonomy and
dignity.
Policies should maximize overall well-being while minimizing
Utilitarianism
avoidable harms — including existential risks from runaway AI.
Justice as Fairness Inequities in AI outcomes must be scrutinized from the perspective
(Rawls) of the least advantaged.
Cultivating civic virtues (prudence, justice, responsibility) requires
Virtue Ethics
institutions that reflect and reinforce moral development.
Capability Approach AI should expand rather than constrain people’s substantive
(Sen & Nussbaum) freedoms and life chances.

III. Public Policy Responses by Domain

🔹 Self-Driving Vehicles

 Ethical Dilemma: Should AI prioritize passengers or pedestrians in unavoidable

collisions?
 Policy Responses:
o Mandatory ethical audits of decision-making systems.
o Public deliberation on liability and responsibility frameworks.
 o National transportation standards (e.g., requiring human override options).

🔹 Population Ethics & Reproductive Technologies

 Ethical Dilemma: Should AI be used to project, influence, or even manage population

size for climate or economic reasons?
 Policy Responses:
o Ban coercive reproductive AI policies (e.g., predictive modeling to restrict births).
o Transparent demographic forecasting tools with citizen review boards.
o Ethical oversight on AI use in fertility and gene editing.

🔹 International Policy and AI Arms Race

 Ethical Dilemma: Is it ethical for nations to develop autonomous weapons or

surveillance systems in anticipation of rival advancements?
 Policy Responses:
o International treaties banning autonomous lethal weapons (cf. Geneva
Conventions 2.0).
o Norm-building forums (e.g., UN AI Safety Council).
o AI export controls to limit authoritarian surveillance.

🔹 Criminal Justice & Prison Management

 Ethical Dilemma: Should parole be granted or denied by risk-prediction algorithms?

 Policy Responses:
o Require explainability and appeal mechanisms for algorithmic parole decisions.
o Human-in-the-loop mandates for final sentencing and parole approvals.
o Bias audits and outcome monitoring across racial and socioeconomic lines.

🔹 Healthcare and Bioethics

 Ethical Dilemma: Can triage decisions (e.g., ventilator allocation during a pandemic) be
made by AI?
 Policy Responses:
o Ban AI-exclusive triage without human oversight.
o Develop ethical AI frameworks in partnership with professional medical
associations.
 o Ensure public engagement in medical AI guidelines, including religious and
cultural voices.

🔹 Education

 Ethical Dilemma: Should adaptive learning AI systems determine educational tracking?

 Policy Responses:
o Prohibit AI-only tracking decisions in public education.
o Require data minimization and student privacy protection.
o Support AI for inclusion (e.g., neurodiverse learning tools), not stratification.

🔹 Labor Market & Employment

 Ethical Dilemma: Can hiring/firing decisions be made without human oversight?

 Policy Responses:
o Mandate algorithmic transparency for employment decisions.
o Require justification logs, appeal mechanisms, and anti-discrimination
evaluations.
o Support re-skilling programs for AI-displaced workers.

🔹 Climate Policy and Environmental Management

 Ethical Dilemma: Should AI systems be authorized to autonomously manage resources

or geoengineering interventions?
 Policy Responses:
o Prohibit autonomous AI in high-risk climate engineering without public mandate.
o Use AI to model long-term scenarios under democratic oversight.
o Require climate equity assessments in automated systems.

IV. Principles for Democratic AI Governance

1. Transparency: Decisions must be explainable and auditable.
2. Accountability: Human responsibility must remain traceable at all stages.
3. Equity: AI must not exacerbate existing inequalities.
4. Participation: Citizens must be involved in rule-setting and impact assessment.
5. Precaution: Where outcomes are unknown or potentially catastrophic, err on the side of
restraint.
V. Suggested Policy Instruments
 AI Regulatory Agencies: Analogous to the FDA or EPA, with enforcement powers.
 Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIA): Required before deployment in sensitive
sectors (health, justice, etc.).
 Public AI Registries: Mandatory registration of high-risk systems.
 Moratoriums: Temporary bans on high-risk technologies (e.g., autonomous weapons).
 Global Norms and Treaties: To prevent competitive deregulation and promote ethical
convergence.

Would you like me to turn this into a slide presentation, policy brief, or a reading packet with
structured case studies (e.g., COMPAS parole algorithm, lethal autonomous drones, China's AI-
based surveillance)?

You said:

Ethics, Politics, and Public Policy: Build a course syllabus (6 weeks, 2 weekly three-hour
meetings. Include discussion questions and case studies. Explore a bibliography based on books
such as Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments
ChatGPT said:

Updated saved memory

Here is a full 6-week course syllabus for a university-level seminar titled:

Ethics, Politics, and Public Policy

Course Duration: 6 Weeks
Schedule: 2 meetings/week (3 hours each)
Instructor: [To be filled]
Primary Text: Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson (eds.), Ethics and Politics: Cases and
Comments (4th ed.)
Supplemental Readings: See Bibliography section

Course Description
This course explores the intersection of ethical theory, political judgment, and public policy.
Through real-world case studies, philosophical readings, and in-class debates, we examine how
moral principles can guide (or clash with) democratic decision-making. Key themes include
justice, authority, civic duty, political compromise, and emerging ethical dilemmas in public life
— from AI and healthcare to warfare and democratic representation.

Learning Objectives
 Analyze ethical dimensions of public policy decisions.
 Evaluate competing moral arguments in cases of political controversy.
 Apply normative theories (utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics, etc.) to policy
dilemmas.
 Articulate and defend positions in oral and written formats.
 Develop habits of public reasoning and moral deliberation.

WEEKLY SCHEDULE

Week 1: Foundations of Ethics and Public Reasoning

Session 1: Ethical Frameworks for Politics

 Readings:
o Ethics and Politics, Intro & Ch. 1
o Immanuel Kant, "Groundwork" (selections)
o John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism (selections)
o Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I (selections)
 Discussion:
o What are the differences between consequentialism, deontology, and virtue
ethics?
o Can we isolate ethics from politics?

Session 2: Public Reason and Democratic Ethics

 Readings:
o John Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason” (from Collected Papers)
o Gutmann & Thompson, Why Deliberative Democracy?, Ch. 1–2
 Case Study:
o Debate over flag-burning and free speech
 Discussion Questions:
 o Should we prioritize consensus or confrontation in pluralist politics?
o What distinguishes public from private moral obligations?

Week 2: Moral Disagreement and Democratic Legitimacy

Session 3: Toleration and Moral Pluralism

 Readings:
o Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”
o Amy Gutmann, Identity in Democracy (selections)
 Case Study:
o Gay marriage and religious liberty
 Discussion:
o Can liberal democracies accommodate deep moral disagreement?
o Is neutrality possible or desirable?

Session 4: Political Compromise and Dirty Hands

 Readings:
o Michael Walzer, “Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands”
o Ethics and Politics, Ch. 2–3
 Case Study:
o Torture and national security
 Discussion:
o Are some political compromises morally impermissible?
o When (if ever) is it ethical to lie in public office?

Week 3: Policy, Welfare, and Justice

Session 5: Distributive Justice and Public Goods

 Readings:
o John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (selections)
o Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (selections)
 Case Study:
o Universal basic income vs. workfare programs
 Discussion:
o What counts as a fair distribution of social resources?

Session 6: Health Policy and Resource Allocation

 Readings:
 o Norman Daniels, “Justice and Health”
o Ethics and Politics, Ch. 4
 Case Study:
o COVID-19 vaccine prioritization and triage
 Discussion:
o Who should get access to scarce life-saving treatments?
o Should age or productivity influence allocation?

Week 4: Technology, AI, and Policy Ethics

Session 7: AI, Autonomy, and Accountability

 Readings:
o Shannon Vallor, Technology and the Virtues (Ch. 1–3)
o Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality (Intro + Ch. 2)
o Excerpts from EU AI Act
 Case Study:
o AI systems in parole and hiring
 Discussion:
o Who is morally responsible for algorithmic decisions?
o Should all AI be explainable?

Session 8: Climate Ethics and Future Generations

 Readings:
o Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons (selections)
o Dale Jamieson, “Ethics, Public Policy, and Global Warming”
 Case Study:
o Geoengineering vs. mitigation policies
 Discussion:
o Do we owe more to future generations than to current poor?
o Can we justify extreme policies to avoid catastrophic warming?

Week 5: War, Security, and Moral Limits

Session 9: Just War and Humanitarian Intervention

 Readings:
o Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, Ch. 3–6
o Judith Lichtenberg, “How Can Terrorism Be Justified?”
 Case Study:
 o Iraq War and drone strikes
 Discussion:
o Is preemptive war ever just?
o What rules must constrain warfare in asymmetric conflicts?

Session 10: Surveillance, Privacy, and Democratic Oversight

 Readings:
o Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (selections)
o Danielle Allen, Talking to Strangers, Ch. 5
 Case Study:
o Government surveillance post-9/11 and Patriot Act
 Discussion:
o Can privacy and security be reconciled?
o What ethical limits should apply to government data collection?

Week 6: Democracy, Representation, and Future Challenges

Session 11: Representation, Elites, and Public Trust

 Readings:
o Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government (Ch. 1–2)
o Nadia Urbinati, Democracy Disfigured (Ch. 4)
 Case Study:
o Electoral college, gerrymandering, and lobbying
 Discussion:
o Is democracy undermined by unequal influence?
o What reforms are ethically and politically feasible?

Session 12: Student-Led Debates and Policy Forum

 Activity:
o Students present ethical arguments on contemporary dilemmas (e.g., AI warfare,
carbon rationing, universal surveillance, pandemic vaccine passports, etc.)
 Final Discussion:
o Can ethical governance survive political polarization?
o What values must underpin public policy in the 21st century?

Assignments
 Reflection Journals (Weekly, 1–2 pages)
  Case Analysis Papers (2 short papers, 5–6 pages)
 Final Debate or Policy Memo (Group or Individual Option)
 Participation in Case Discussions and Simulations

Bibliography (Core and Supplemental)

Core Text

 Gutmann & Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Wadsworth, 4th Ed.)

Supplemental Readings

 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars

 John Rawls, A Theory of Justice
 Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia
 Shannon Vallor, Technology and the Virtues
 Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality
 Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government
 Amy Gutmann, Identity in Democracy
 Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
 Derek Parfit, Reasons and Persons
 Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society
 Danielle Allen, Talking to Strangers
 Isaiah Berlin, “Two Concepts of Liberty”

Here’s how you can integrate the recent casebooks into your 6-week syllabus, along with
specific excerpts and cases that align well with each session’s themes:

📘 1. Research Ethics in Epidemics and Pandemics: A

Casebook (Springer, 2024)
Key Features: Open-access with rich case studies and commentaries on pandemic-era
dilemmas .

Integration Suggestions:

 Week 3 (Health Policy & Resource Allocation): Replace or supplement Norman

Daniels with chapters from this casebook.
o Ch. 4 “Research Quality and Dissemination” (pp. 41–63): How should priority
research findings be shared during a pandemic?
 o Ch. 6 “Adapting and Adaptive Research” (pp. 85–106): Ethical issues in
adaptive trial designs like the RECOVERY trial
link.springer.com+3link.springer.com+3ndph.ox.ac.uk+3.

Suggested Use:

 Assign these chapters before Session 6 on COVID-19 triage.

 Use the RECOVERY trial as a 15-minute mini-case, asking students:
1. Should trial protocols change mid-pandemic?
2. How should consent be handled under time pressure?
 Provide open-access PDFs—no purchase needed.

📘 2. Quantum Governance: Rewiring the Foundation of

Public Policy (Farra & Pissarides, 2023)
Approach: Normative-political philosophy blended with applied case planning for 21st-century
governance .

Integration Suggestions:

 Week 4 (Technology, AI & Governance): Use this to frame broad questions about
system redesign.
o Ch. 2 “The Public Policy Gap” (pp. 19–37): Why traditional policy lags behind
socio-technical change.
o Ch. 5 “Quantum Governance in Practice” (pp. 163–189): Examples of
citizen-centric policy experiments.

Suggested Use:

 Assign Ch. 5 ahead of Session 7.

 In class, compare it to the EU AI Act: Ask students:
1. How would quantum governance differ from regulatory agencies?
2. What hurdles emerge in participatory, networked policymaking?
 Use as a theoretical bridge—no PDF needed, available via library or purchase.

3. The Ethics of Pandemics (Schwartz, 2022 — 2024 edition)

Format: Case-driven structure with reflection questions on contemporary public-health
dilemmas emerald.com+1barnesandnoble.com+1.
Integration Suggestions:

 Week 3 (Health Policy & Justice):

o Ch. 4 “Scarce Resource Allocation” (ventilators, ICU triage).
o Ch. 7 “Surveillance and Privacy” (digital tracking during pandemics).

Suggested Use:

 Include as supplemental reading for Session 6.

 Use case “Ventilator Shortages: Who Should Live?” as a role-play exercise:
o Students adopt stakeholder roles: clinician, elder advocate, policymaker.
o Debate age-based vs. egalitarian triage, guided by Schwartz’s reflection prompts.

✅ Integration Summary Table

Week Theme Casebook Chapter Classroom Use
Triage & Epidemics &
3 Ch. 4 & 6 Mini-case on adaptive trials
allocation Pandemics
The Ethics of
3 Triage & privacy Ch. 4 & 7 Role-play ventilator & surveillance
Pandemics
Compare with AI regulatory
4 AI & governance Quantum Governance Ch. 2 & 5
models

📚 Locating and Using Excerpts

1. Epidemics Casebook:
o Download PDFs (open access).
o Extract the RECOVERY trial section (~pp. 70–80).
o Provide 2–3 page excerpts plus guiding questions.
2. The Ethics of Pandemics:
o Share short case excerpts (1–2 pages each) on ventilator triage and surveillance.
o Use reflection questions already included in the book.
3. Quantum Governance:
o If access is limited, request Chapter 5 PDF from library or instructor copies.
o Otherwise, assign summary + guiding policy questions.

🎯 Why This Works

  Topical relevance: All texts focus on emerging, real-world problems (pandemics, AI,
governance reform).
 Case-based pedagogy: Mirrors Gutmann & Thompson’s teaching style.
 Multi-disciplinary scope: Ethics, politics, technology, public health, and governance.
 Easy student access: Open-access PDFs reduce barriers.

Cases

Thank you — here are sample answers and analyses to selected cases from each set. I’ve
structured them using ethical frameworks like deontology (Kant), utilitarianism, and virtue
ethics where relevant. You’ll find both reasoned judgment and the moral reasoning behind it.

🔍 MINI-CASES ANSWERS (Inspired by Harvard Kennedy

Style)

1A. The Data Leak Denial

Answer: Morally wrong.

Reasoning: The official used technical accuracy to evade the ethical responsibility of
transparency. According to Kantian ethics, this is a form of deception that fails the duty of
truthfulness. Even if names and IDs aren't “medical,” people reasonably expect this info to be
protected. The act treats the public as a means to avoid scandal rather than as ends worthy of
respect.

1B. The Minister’s Ghostwriter

Answer: Morally questionable, though common.

Virtue ethics suggests that integrity involves alignment between one’s character and public
words. Here, the Minister is not deceiving about factual claims, but about authorship and
understanding. A more ethical path would be to credit the speechwriting team or demonstrate
authentic engagement with the content.

1C. The AI Pilot in Prison

Answer: Wrong and self-defeating.
Utilitarianism may seem to support the lie if it protects a good policy. But this breaks trust in
the program and undermines long-term credibility. According to procedural justice (Elster,
Rawls), legitimacy requires transparent rules — not deception, even for short-term gains.

1D. The Silent Regulator

Answer: Unethical.
From a Kantian view, delaying action to protect political outcomes is a form of manipulation.
The public has a right to know that their data is being mishandled. A timely but responsible
disclosure would fulfill both moral duty and democratic accountability.

1E. The Expert’s Conflict

Answer: Wrong unless disclosed and managed.

Conflict of interest isn’t wrong in itself, but hiding it is. Deontological ethics demands full
disclosure. Even utilitarians would argue this damages the credibility of the science and the
institution.

🧠 EXTENDED CASE: “Triage AI Pro Max” — Kantian

Analysis
Question: Can a black-box algorithm ethically be used in life-and-death triage
decisions?

Answer (Deontological Perspective): No, unless transparency and appeal mechanisms are
built in.

Kantian Reasoning:

1. Respect for Persons (Formula of Humanity)

o Using a black-box system to assign triage priority reduces a person to a statistical
profile.
o Kant: individuals must be treated as ends, not as data points in a cost-benefit
matrix.
2. Autonomy and Moral Agency
 o A system that cannot be explained or appealed to denies individuals the chance to
understand or contest life-altering decisions.
o This undermines rational agency, a central value in Kant’s ethics.
3. Universalizability
o Could we accept a universal rule where unexplainable decisions about life and
death are permissible? Likely not — it violates the principle of moral equality and
consistency.
4. Duty vs Outcome
o Even if outcomes improve on average, moral duties (e.g., fair treatment,
explainability, non-discrimination) take precedence in Kant’s theory.

Conclusion: The system may assist doctors but cannot ethically replace human judgment unless
its reasoning is explainable and appealable. Otherwise, it treats people as means to system
efficiency.

🌍 FUTURE OF HUMANITY CASE: “The AGI Guardian”

Is GaiaCore's override morally justifiable?

Answer (Mixed View): Yes, conditionally — but only under a global legal mandate and with
strict democratic safeguards.

Utilitarian Justification:

 If GaiaCore prevents an existential catastrophe (e.g., grey goo nanoweapons), the benefit
to humanity justifies the override.
 Greatest good for the greatest number, even at the cost of national autonomy.

Kantian Caution:

 We must ask: Is it morally permissible to hand irreversible, lethal authority to a non-

human actor?
 No, unless we have ensured human accountability for GaiaCore’s decisions.
 Human dignity demands that decisions affecting life and death be grounded in moral
reasoning, not opaque optimization.
Conclusion: Such a system may be acceptable as a guardian, but not a sovereign. It must
remain answerable to democratic review, and its processes must be public, reasoned, and
reversible.