Democracy, the Ideological Divide and Power Dynamics
How Divergent Moral Foundations and Realpolitik Shape the Ethical Governance of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence will clearly be a transformative force in altering the decision-making process of democratic societies, and this unsettling fact raises critical questions about political, economic, and technological power and its influence on governance.
In democracies, where ethical decisions regarding AI must reflect the collective will, we face the challenge of determining how and by whom these decisions should be made. We must acknowledge the divergent moral and ideological foundations of our political landscape. While artificial intelligence is largely designed to be politically neutral, it is ultimately shaped by the values and principles of the humans who establish the rules and laws it must follow.
Left-leaning and right-leaning ideologies differ fundamentally on issues of government intervention, social progress, economic regulation, and individual versus collective priorities. These differing perspectives will inevitably shape our approach to AI governance and ethics, from views on regulation and economic impact to social equity and cultural preservation considerations. Recognizing and addressing these ideological divides is crucial as we navigate the ethical challenges posed by AI in the context of navigating the complexity of decision-making in democratic societies.
As we advocate for the ethical foundation of artificial intelligence, we must confront the stark reality of power dynamics in the broader society. While ethical considerations and a belief in transparent democratic processes may seem vital, the influence of power ultimately shapes crucial decisions.
This recognition forces us to reconcile our idealistic goals with the pragmatic necessities of realpolitik. The discomfort arises from the collision between our diverse moral intuitions, as illustrated by the contrasting ideologies on the political spectrum.
The left's emphasis on "interfering with society" for social progress and the right's preference to "don't interfere" with social lives reflect fundamentally different approaches to governance and ethical decision-making. These divergent views, rooted in contrasting beliefs about society, culture, and the role of government, complicate our efforts to establish a unified ethical framework for AI.
Jonathan Haidt's work in The Righteous Mind further illuminates this challenge. He reveals how our moral judgments often arise from intuitive responses rather than rational deliberation. This insight helps explain the deep-seated nature of the ideological divide shown in the diagram, from differing views on equality and freedom to contrasting ideas about social progress and preservation.
Recognizing these inherent differences in our moral foundations - whether we prioritize "fairness" and "helping those who cannot help themselves," as shown on the left or "upholding order" and "championing opportunity," as depicted on the right - is crucial. It helps us understand why achieving consensus on AI ethics is challenging and why power often prevails over purely ethical considerations in decision-making processes.
The ethical governance of artificial intelligence is deeply intertwined with what Joshua Greene describes as "the tragedy of commonsense morality" in his book Moral Tribes. This concept reflects the challenges posed by the stark left-right divide, where fundamentally different approaches to society, culture, and governance clash.
Greene coined "the tragedy of commonsense morality" to explain the conflicts that arise when different groups, or "moral tribes," have incompatible visions of what a moral society should be. These tribes operate with distinct versions of moral common sense, shaped by automatic settings that cause them to view the world through different moral lenses, making cooperation difficult.
He illustrates this dilemma with a parable of four tribes of herders living around a forest, each following different moral rules. For example, one tribe might assign each family an equal number of sheep to graze on common land, while another allocates each family its own plot of land. These differing conceptions of morality reflect the broader issue of incompatible moral frameworks.
Greene argues that while our moral instincts serve us well within our own cultural groups, they often fail when addressing conflicts between groups with differing ethical perspectives. This challenge is particularly evident in global AI governance, where stakeholders from diverse social, cultural, and political backgrounds bring varied moral intuitions and priorities to the table.
On the left, there is an emphasis on inclusive, multicultural, and evolving societies, focusing on equality and fairness. In contrast, the right prioritizes exclusive, established, and nationalistic values, emphasizing freedom and order. These divergent worldviews significantly shape how different groups approach AI governance.
This situation mirrors a global policy debate where proponents of societal regulation and social progress must find common ground with advocates of deregulation and minimal interference. The deep-seated beliefs on each side make achieving consensus difficult, but navigating these moral landscapes is crucial for ethical AI governance.
The diagram illustrates this complexity: the left's preference for diplomacy and pacifism contrasts sharply with the right's emphasis on strong leadership and opportunity. Achieving a shared ethical framework for AI is challenging but essential, requiring us to bridge fundamentally different views on society, progress, and human nature.
Consensus demands compromise, and ethical purity is often unattainable in the real world. However, in practice, the realities of political, economic, and technological power to define what is considered "ethical" in AI development and implementation are concentrated in the hands of those with the most political, economic, and technological influence—even in a democracy. This raises critical questions about who will steer the ethical compass of artificial intelligence regarding the future of democratic governance.
