What is Aristotle's Virtue Ethics?

What is Existentialism?

What is Epistemology?

What is Ontology?

What is Phenomenology?

What is Plato's Theory of Forms?

What is Plato's Allegory of the Cave?

What are Aristotle’s Four Causes?

What is Utilitarianism in Ethics?

What is Materialism?

What is Empiricism?

What is Absurdism?

What is Rationalism?

What is Solipsism?

What is Idealism?

Stoicism | Definition, History, Examples & Analysis

It’s likely that you have heard someone described as “stoic” if they heroically endure pain, or stay calm in the face of misfortune. In this common usage, this is “stoicism” with a lowercase “s”. When Stoicism appears with a formal capital letter, though, it refers to the philosophical school — the conceptual basis from which we derive our general sense of what it means to be stoic, and the subject of this guide. 

Our everyday sense of what it means to be “stoic,” divorced from its philosophical roots, is not entirely unfaithful to the underlying philosophy of Stoicism. Although there is variation between the ideas of different Stoic philosophers, Stoicism in general aims to help people minimize negative emotions, endure hardship, and live good lives.

The School of Life’s Great Thinkers (2020) provides a concise and approachable summary of Stoicism in its basic essence:  

Great Thinkers

Stoicism was a philosophy that flourished for some 400 years in ancient Greece and Rome, gaining widespread support among all classes of society. It had one very large and highly practical ambition: to teach people how to be calm and brave in the face of overwhelming anxiety and pain. 

Stoicism is a grounded philosophy centered on practical, everyday considerations: how do we live a good life, and deal with the negative aspects of existence which will inevitably arise? For the Stoics, the mind is key: by controlling our thoughts and emotions, we can control how we react to anything that may happen. A central principle of Stoicism is that we should only worry about what we can control. Rather than being anxious about what we cannot change, Stoicism advises us that it is better to focus our attention on what is actually within our power. It is unnecessary, unproductive, and actively damaging for our well-being to worry about anything else. 

The Stoics extend this mindset to our very greatest worries, such as ill health and death. They advise us to practice a kind of radical acceptance of life’s worst aspects, and to keep in mind our insignificance from a cosmic perspective. As The School of Life continues, “Stoicism is nothing less than an elegant, intelligent dress rehearsal for catastrophe”:

Rather than appease ourselves with sunny tales, it is far better – the Stoics proposed – to courageously come to terms with the very worst possibilities – and then make ourselves entirely at home with them. (2020)

This may be easier said than done, of course, but the Stoics were adamant that this kind of mental discipline was the key to a calm and happy life. 

In Stoicism (2014), John Sellars unpacks Stoicism’s main philosophical features in more detail:

Stoicism

the Stoics proposed a materialist ontology in which God permeates the entire cosmos as a material force. They claimed that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness and that external goods and circumstances are irrelevant (or at least nowhere near as important as most people tend to assume). They argued that our emotions are merely the product of mistaken judgements and can be eradicated by a form of cognitive psychotherapy. They brought these various doctrines together in the image of the ideal Stoic sage who would be perfectly rational, emotionless, indifferent to his or her circumstances and, infamously, happy even when being tortured on the rack. 

For the Stoics, God exists in our material world, and virtue is seen as the highest good and the key to eudaimonia (happiness, flourishing). As Sellars points out, Stoicism does exhibit “complex philosophical theories in ontology (theory of what exists), epistemology (theory of knowledge) and ethics,” but its main focus always returns to how we should live our everyday lives calmly and rationally. 

Now that we have a clearer sense of Stoicism, let’s unpack it in more detail and take a look at its most significant philosophers.

The history of Stoicism is rich and complex, with a range of philosophers from different centuries and countries all contributing to our ideas of what “Stoicism” is today. In the following section, we will introduce some of the most influential contributors to Stoic thought.

Strangely enough, the word “stoic” itself is originally derived from the Stoa Poikile (or “painted porch”) in the Ancient Agora of Athens, where Zeno of Citium (c. 334–c. 262 BCE) and his followers first gathered to discuss their philosophy. 

Zeno may have founded the school of Stoic philosophy, but his ideas did not develop in a vacuum. Many webs of influence can be traced between Zeno’s ideas and those which preceded him — with Socrates and the teachings of Plato’s Academy inevitably looming large, along with the Cynic school of philosophy.  

Even at this early stage, Stoicism was not limited to Athens. As John Sellars explains in The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition,

The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition

Although originally associated with the Painted Stoa in Athens, even in the Hellenistic period we find Stoics active in other parts of the ancient Mediterranean world, most notably Posidonius at Rhodes and Athenodorus in Pergamum. Even in the Hellenistic period, then, Stoicism was a rich and diverse movement, a living tradition as complex as its reception in the periods since antiquity [...] (2016)

Other influential Stoic philosophers from this early period include Chrysippus of Soli (c. 280–c. 206 BCE), who substantially built upon Zeno’s existing principles. Sellars argues that 

He is probably the most important of the early Stoics and arguably the most important Stoic philosopher of all. His most significant contribution to the development of Stoicism lay in bringing together the ideas of his predecessors, adding his own original material and setting out a highly systematic philosophical system that would become the basis for a Stoic orthodoxy. (2014)

The writings of Zeno, Chrysippus, and other early Stoics (such as Cleanthes and Hecato) have been lost to the mists of history, and so all we know of them today are from the works of other writers. The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers (c. third century BCE) by Diogenes Laërtius is a substantial source, and his sections on The Stoic Philosophers (2017) can be found in one convenient volume on Perlego. It is from Laërtius, for example, that we find key thoughts from the early Stoics on the primacy of acting in accord with nature:

The Stoic Philosophers

This is why Zeno was the first (in his treatise On the Nature of Man) to designate as the end "life in agreement with nature" (or living agreeably to nature), which is the same as a virtuous life, virtue being the goal towards which nature guides us. So too Cleanthes in his treatise On Pleasure, as also Posidonius, and Hecato in his work On Ends. Again, living virtuously is equivalent to living in accordance with experience of the actual course of nature, as Chrysippus says in the first book of his De finibus; for our individual natures are parts of the nature of the whole universe. (c. third century BCE [2017]) 

Living a virtuous life in agreement with nature is just one key tenet of Stoic thought which can be traced back to the very first Stoics. We will turn now, however, to the most influential figures of Roman Stoicism. 

Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE–65 CE) lived a varied life as a philosopher, dramatist, and advisor to the tyrannical Emperor Nero. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic (c. 62–64 CE [2016]) is one of the most influential works of Stoic philosophy, and it remains popular to this day as a relatable and practical guide for dealing with life’s challenges. Seneca deals with a variety of subjects in his letters (addressed to his friend, Lucilius), but the Stoic emphasis on the importance of a calm and clear mentality is evident throughout. Here, for example, we find a classic expression of Stoic fortitude and mental discipline:

Seneca's Letters from a Stoic

[L]et the mind be disciplined to understand and to endure its own lot, and let it have the knowledge that there is nothing which Fortune does not dare [...]. We must not cry out at any of these calamities. Into such a world have we entered, and under such laws do we live. (c. 62–64 CE [2016]) 

Rather than rail in vain against the fundamental nature of reality, Seneca advises us to accept it and live as calmly as we can in the present: “memory recalls the tortures of fear, while foresight anticipates them. The present alone can make no man wretched” (c. 62–64 CE [2016]). Even though life may be full of horrors, Seneca tells us that we “suffer more often in imagination than in reality,” and that the best way of dispelling worry is to “assume that what you fear may happen will certainly happen in any event” (c. 62–64 CE [2016]). Through this kind of radical acceptance, Seneca argues, we can find peace. 

As a former slave, Epictetus (c. 50–c. 135 CE) had the kind of life which would have sorely tested his Stoic teachings. He became an influential teacher of philosophy in Rome after gaining his freedom, and what we know of his lectures comes to us in the form of transcriptions from his student Arrian. With his teachings compiled into Discourses (c. 108 CE [2012]) and Enchiridion (c. 125 CE [2012]), the Stoicism advocated by Epictetus has had a huge impact (notably on Marcus Aurelius, who we discuss in the next section). 

The Enchiridion begins with one of Stoicism’s key concepts: the importance of making a distinction between what we have the power to change, and what we do not. Epictetus writes,  

Enchiridion

Of things some are in our power, and others are not. In our power are opinion, movement toward a thing, desire, aversion (turning from a thing); and in a word, whatever are our own acts: not in our power are the body, property, reputation, offices (magisterial power), and in a word, whatever are not our own acts. (c. 125 CE [2012])

Once we have determined whether something lies within our power, we are then able to think and act accordingly. Epictetus tells us that “if it relates to anything which is not in our power, be ready to say, that it does not concern you” (c. 125 CE [2012]). 

Sellars argues that this key concept “perfectly captures the essence of Epictetus' philosophy as we know it” (2014): 

Almost all human misery, he argues, is the product of people [...] assuming that they have control of things that in fact they do not, of grounding their happiness on external things "not up to us" and so making it highly vulnerable to the vicissitudes of fortune. (2014)

Marcus Aurelius (121–180 CE) is one of the most respected Roman emperors; often praised for his apparently wise, considered, and moral approach to leadership. His reputation as a philosopher, however, has arguably transcended the rest of his biography — with his Stoic reflections on life experiencing widespread popularity, particularly in recent years. As Marcel van Ackeren argues, part of Marcus Aurelius’ appeal lies in his fusion of imperial power with philosophical introspection:

A Companion to Marcus Aurelius

Marcus’ reception and reputation does not rest on the two independent pillars of being an emperor and being a philosopher. It is their combination that intrigues, and has always intrigued. (2012)

Gathered together in his Meditations (c. 161–180 CE [2019]), Marcus Aurelius’ musings were seemingly intended to be nothing more than a self-addressed record of his private thoughts, but they now stand as “one of the most widely read philosophical texts from antiquity” (van Ackeren, 2012). In his introduction to Meditations, Donald Robertson argues that it is “one of the most loved self-help and spiritual classics of all time”:

Meditations

the central appeal of the book [...] is that it offers a way to “master care and pain” by providing philosophical insights that promise to elevate our minds above worldly concerns – both the things we crave and those we fear. (2019)

Together with the earlier Stoic texts we have discussed, the Meditations have arguably done the most to shape the Stoic mindset as we know it today. A central tenet of Stoicism, for example, is the idea that we are able to correct false or unhelpful beliefs in order to achieve emotional equilibrium — as Marcus Aurelius famously advises here:   

If you are pained by any external thing, it is not this thing that disturbs you, but your own judgment about it. And it is in your power to wipe out this judgment now. (c. 161–180 CE [2019])

Memento mori — the practice of reminding ourselves of our own mortality — is similarly central to Stoicism. In the words of Marcus Aurelius,

Do not act as if you were going to live ten thousand years. Death hangs over you. While you live, while it is in your power, be good. (c. 161–180 CE [2019])

If you’d like to read about Marcus Aurelius in more depth, A Companion to Marcus Aurelius (edited by Marcel van Ackeren, 2012) and Marcus Aurelius (John Sellars, 2020) provide comprehensive coverage.

One of the issues that has been raised about Stoicism is its attitude towards suffering and emotion in general. It may be possible to remain stoic in the face of some misfortunes, but it may be unrealistic (and a privileged viewpoint) to expect people dealing with more extreme levels of pain and misfortune to remain stoic — for example, those who deal with decades of chronic illness and disability. It is easy to advocate Stoicism when the pain is manageable, but not so easy if it remains intractable for years on end. 

Is Stoicism too fatalistic and comfortable with the suffering of others? Does it tend to assume things are more out of our collective control than they actually are? Can complacency creep in if we merely accept the bad things that happen, without actively trying to change things for the better? Is repressing emotion really a good idea for our mental health?

This last point, Margaret Graver argues, is a misinterpretation of Stoicism. Graver admits, though, that it is easy to see why such an impression of emotionless Stoicism has emerged:

Stoicism and Emotion

“Stoicism” in today’s English means “absence of emotion,” and this usage takes for granted that the Stoics of ancient Greece advocated an across-the-board suppression of feeling. It is no wonder, then, that people interested in the study of emotion have frequently regarded the ancient Stoics with suspicion, even hostility. Most of us believe, reasonably enough, that the capacity for emotions is an important and in any case an ineliminable part of being human. (2008)

But the Stoics’ actual aim, Graver argues, is “not to eliminate feelings as such from human life, but to understand what sorts of aﬀective responses a person would have who was free of false belief” (2008). In other words, this interpretation holds that the Stoics want to identify and eliminate unnecessary feelings, along with their harmful effects on us. 

Along similar lines, Ward Farnsworth argues that

The Practicing Stoic

This is all a misunderstanding. The Stoics do not condemn feeling. In important ways they endorse it. Stoics value compassion, detest indolence, and are committed to service to mankind [...]. But the Stoic would unhook these commitments from inner distress over any given case. For why stop with that case? There is cause for such distress in every direction, and meanwhile it distracts from the big picture and from anything constructive one might do about it. (2018)

Farnsworth argues that Stoics would separate feeling from emotion — they would have compassion for a grieving family, for example, but they would not feel an unreasonable amount of emotion. The Stoic mindset, Farnsworth argues, is composed in such a way that it resembles a greater degree of lived experience than the Stoic might actually have. They would contemplate events with the long understanding, and perspective, of having experienced thousands of other similar events — like an experienced doctor comforting one of their many patients (Farnsworth, 2018). Critics of Stoicism, of course, might still argue that such a response lacks compassion and constitutes an unrealistic denial of human feeling. We may be calmer if we are unaffected automatons, but is this a realistic or even desirable state of affairs? As we will explore in the next section, such concerns have not held back Stoicism’s influence on the modern self-help industry and even psychotherapy. 

Stoicism: a philosophy for the twenty-first century? 

Stoicism has had a rich legacy, with its influence stretching across the centuries. It still has many strong advocates today, and it has recently experienced an upsurge in popularity. Author Ryan Holiday, for example, has experienced great success with his books on Stoicism and the wider The Daily Stoic brand. Stoicism has influenced the self-help sector and been praised for its usefulness in treating a range of modern ailments. The School of Life writes,

We still honour this school whenever we call someone ‘stoic’ or plain ‘philosophical’ when fate turns against them: when they lose their keys, are humiliated at work, rejected in love or disgraced in society. Of all philosophies, Stoicism remains perhaps the most immediately relevant and useful for our uncertain and panicky times. (2020)

Stoicism has even been credited as an influential precursor to such modern psychotherapies as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) — both approaches emphasize the central role of cognition in controlling emotions and the importance of recognizing our thoughts as “just thoughts” which we can control our reactions to. As Donald Robertson writes in “The Stoic influence on modern psychotherapy,”

Albert Ellis, the founder of REBT [rational-emotive behavior therapy], and Aaron T. Beck, the founder of “cognitive therapy,” the most common version of CBT, both described Stoicism as the main philosophical inspiration for their respective psychotherapies. (2016)

[T]he cognitive theory of emotions [...] is the aspect of ancient Stoicism that is most familiar to modern CBT practitioners, and which exerts the most explicit influence over their theory and practice. (2016)

Just as CBT is extensively employed to treat a range of mental health disorders, some modern philosophers are in favor of prescribing Stoicism as a preventive mental practice to help us cope with the challenges of life. Such mental discipline may be difficult to maintain, especially in the more extreme circumstances that life throws at us, but the Stoics argue that we must try. 

Introducing Greek Philosophy by Rosemary Wright

Ackeren, M. van (ed.) (2012) A Companion to Marcus Aurelius. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1002709/a-companion-to-marcus-aurelius-pdf 

Aurelius, M. (2019) Meditations. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1342933/meditations-the-philosophy-classic-pdf 

Blackson, T. (2011) Ancient Greek Philosophy. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1013655/ancient-greek-philosophy-from-the-presocratics-to-the-hellenistic-philosophers-pdf 

de Botton, A. (ed.) (2020) Great Thinkers. The School of Life. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1637102/great-thinkers-simple-tools-from-sixty-great-thinkers-to-improve-your-life-today-pdf  

Epictetus (2012) Enchiridion. Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1444077/enchiridion-pdf 

Epictetus (2012) Discourses (Books 1 and 2). Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/111046/discourses-books-1-and-2-pdf 

Epictetus (2012) Discourses (Books 3 and 4). Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/111171/discourses-books-3-and-4-pdf 

Durand, M., Shogry S., and Baltzly D. (2023) “Stoicism,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Spring 2023 Edition. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2023/entries/stoicism/ 

Farnsworth, W. (2018) The Practicing Stoic. David R. Godine, Publisher. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1384624/the-practicing-stoic-a-philosophical-users-manual-pdf 

Graver, M. (2008) Stoicism and Emotion. The University of Chicago Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1851635/stoicism-and-emotion-pdf 

Holowchak, A. (2008) The Stoics: A Guide for the Perplexed. Bloomsbury Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/874963/the-stoics-a-guide-for-the-perplexed-pdf 

Laertius, D. (2018) The Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers. Perlego. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1822954/the-lives-and-opinions-of-eminent-philosophers-pdf 

Laërtius, D. (2017) The Stoic Philosophers. Klondike Classics. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/976882/the-stoic-philosophers-pdf 

Robertson, D. (2018) Stoicism and the Art of Happiness. John Murray Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3179242/stoicism-and-the-art-of-happiness-practical-wisdom-for-everyday-life-embrace-perseverance-strength-and-happiness-with-stoic-philosophy-pdf 

Sellars, J. (ed.) (2016) The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1561041/the-routledge-handbook-of-the-stoic-tradition

Sellars, J. (2014) Stoicism. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1559085/stoicism-pdf 

Sellars, J. (2020) Marcus Aurelius. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1628770/marcus-aurelius-pdf 

Seneca, L. A. (2016) Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic. Dover Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/510358/senecas-letters-from-a-stoic-pdf 

What is Stoicism?

What is Posthumanism?

What is Kantian Ethics?

What is Consequentialism?

What are the Digital Humanities?

Utopia vs. Dystopia - What’s the Difference?

What is Speculative Fiction?

What is AI Ethics? & Why is it Important? | Definition(s), Examples & Analysis

The rapid development of AI (artificial intelligence) has opened up new ethical frontiers at a startling pace. As the impact of AI is so deep and wide-ranging, its ethical implications are similarly extensive — both in the present and the future. Former Google engineer Blake Lemoine, for example, has raised concerns over what he sees as the possible sentience of Google’s LaMDA, while also criticizing the concentration of AI decision-making power in the hands of only a few corporations. For their part, the big players of Silicon Valley have shown an awareness of AI ethics; banding together to form the non-profit Partnership on AI (PAI) in order to advance “positive outcomes for people and society”. 

The sheer speed of AI development, and the enormous breadth of its potential impact, makes timely regulation particularly challenging. Progress can be slow due to the complicated and weighty issues involved, leaving loopholes unresolved in the meantime. The EU’s proposed Artificial Intelligence Act, for example, is the first of its kind to be proposed by a major regulator, and even this is not yet in force. 

AI is not just any new technology, however — many believe it has the potential to revolutionize society (for better, or for worse). Every industry could be transformed, with our everyday lives looking radically different. As Sam Mielke argues,

In the Age of AI

We are now at a point where AI is booming; every day, new technologies are being developed, and within a couple of decades, these intelligent machines could quite possibly surpass human intelligence. But before then, disruption will happen to jobs, and life in the age of AI a few years from now will be far different from what it is today. (2021)

A range of influential figures, from Stephen Hawking to Bill Gates, have voiced concerns over this looming “singularity” — the theoretical point at which artificial intelligence will outstrip our own, and continue to grow explosively, with unforeseen consequences beyond our control. In this theoretical future, in which artificial superintelligence has been achieved, ethical questions then arise on behalf of AI itself — has it gained sentience, and does it have rights of its own? 

It is not just this potential future that is causing concern, however. The rapid development, use, and wider implementation of AI in our daily lives raises a series of pressing ethical considerations in the early 21st century. As Dominika Ewa Harasimiuk and Tomasz Braun outline in Regulating Artificial Intelligence (2021),

Regulating Artificial Intelligence: Binary Ethics and the Law

Benefits are counterbalanced by serious concerns, which relate to growing automation leading to possible increase in unemployment rates, biased decision-making, excessive access to privacy by authorities, overcomplicated technological solutions increasing the imbalance in the access to knowledge and extraordinary power concentration over in the hands of few corporations of the worldwide reach, like Google, Facebook or Amazon.

This list of concerns can appear daunting, especially when we consider that it is far from exhaustive (with other examples including the impact of AI on the environment, and the implications of AI being given lethal powers). But these ethical concerns must be tempered with the fact that many positive applications of AI can already be seen in action — with improved healthcare diagnostics just one example — and many more will undoubtedly develop in future. The ethical impact of developing and using AI technology must also be weighed against the impact of not using this technology, and the benefits it would bring. But as we are focusing on the ethical considerations here, the following discussion will inevitably be focused on some of the more negative implications of AI. 

Why do we need AI ethics? Why is it important?

As AI continues to rapidly develop, and as the range of its impact (both actual and potential) deepens, it has inevitably become the subject of increased ethical discussion. Just as with any technology which impacts billions of people, an ethical framework to protect human rights and interests becomes necessary. 

If AI is to be given any meaningful autonomy, there is also the need to build an ethical sensibility, or “moral compass”, within AI from the ground up. This is a big challenge for engineers, as their own human-centric perspective must be overcome — they cannot work from the assumption that the AI will always work with the best interests of humans in mind. Even if AI is only used as a tool, with humans acting as the moral agents, there is still a need for ethical rigor. As Alberto Chierici argues in The Ethics of AI (2021),

The Ethics of AI

We need to face the ethical problems they [AI use cases] create. When people start using such powerful technologies, they are making moral choices. What is, then, their moral compass?

“Watch out, the robots are coming for our jobs!” has been a semi-humorous refrain for many years now, with the implication sometimes being that this is a sensationalist and unrealistic prospect. In recent years, many people have stopped seeing the funny side — and started to experience the reality. 

As Amir Husain outlines in The Sentient Machine (2017),

The Sentient Machine: The Coming Age of Artificial Intelligence

We can argue over the details—for ten years or five decades or one hundred years—but the data all point in one direction: most of the jobs that humans do today will be done by machines in the future. 

Husain notes that the rise of driverless trucks alone is expected to “displace around 3 million current jobs”, and that a PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) study from 2017 estimates that “By 2030, we [the US] can expect to lose 38 percent of our current jobs” (Husain, 2017). 

It is sometimes assumed that AI job displacement will be limited to manual, repetitive jobs, but there is reason to believe that AI can potentially have an impact in any industry where roles can be predicted, understood, and capably learned through data — as Martin Ford argues in The Rise of the Robots (2015), 

The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of Mass Unemployment

[A] great many university-educated, white-collar workers are going to discover that their jobs, too, are squarely in the sights as software automation and predictive algorithms advance rapidly in capability.

Ford points out that, as AI rapidly evolves to become competent in ever-more job fields, it becomes harder for workers to upskill their way to safety. It is simply the case that “computers are becoming very proficient at acquiring skills, especially when a large amount of training data is available” (Ford, 2015). Ironically, workers are providing the necessary training data that will allow AI to replace them in the future. 

A recent example of this is the meteoric rise of OpenAI’s ChatGPT chatbot, with its ability to scrape existing content on the web in order to create a range of new content — including original articles and lines of code. The actual quality and accuracy of this output is much debated, but many commentators have been left stunned by the speed of progress. 

A key question is whether it is ethical for an AI to synthesize human content or training data without that human’s permission — especially if the use of this content or training data will then affect their job’s future feasibility. There is lively debate over the ethicality of AI image generators such as Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and DALL-E 2, for example. In order to generate images, these software models scrape existing artwork from the web. As creators depend on art sales and commissions for their livelihood, they are dismayed to see what they regard as their plagiarized intellectual property being exploited under the mantle of AI-created art. Specific artists can even be named in prompts, in order to create images that are very close to that artist’s style. 

Such thorny ethical questions will continue to arise as AI’s influence on the jobs market grows. Fundamentally, the main ethical concern which underpins all others is the direct, human impact of widespread unemployment — as well as its indirect effects. In Martin Ford’s words,

Beyond the potentially devastating impact of long-term unemployment and underemployment on individual lives and on the fabric of society, there will also be a significant economic price. The virtuous feedback loop between productivity, rising wages, and increasing consumer spending will collapse. (2015)

These job losses would not only cause widespread poverty, but also threaten economic stability as “we will face the prospect of having too few viable consumers to continue driving economic growth in our mass-market economic system” (Ford, 2015). Ford calls for a guaranteed basic income to mitigate these disastrous effects; a minimum stipend which would lift millions out of poverty and provide them with the spending power necessary to keep the economic wheels of prosperity turning.

The ethicality of AI’s impact on the jobs market, then, arguably depends upon whether a societal safety net is put in place to deal with its worst effects. Some commentators go even further, and argue that this vision of the future could actually be utopian rather than dystopian — depending on the model that is followed. Increased productivity could (in theory) bring greater economic prosperity for everyone, and potentially free workers to pursue more rewarding work, charitable endeavors, or simply their particular hobbies and interests. Bertrand Russell’s In Praise of Idleness (1935 [2020]) is often referenced in these discussions, as he famously argues (all the way back in 1935) that the increased productivity brought about by technology should result in reduced working hours:

In Praise of Idleness

Modern methods of production have given us the possibility of ease and security for all; we have chosen, instead, to have overwork for some and starvation for the others. Hitherto we have continued to be as energetic as we were before there were machines; in this we have been foolish, but there is no reason to go on being foolish for ever. 

The ethical question of AI’s impact on jobs, then, reaches wider; with potentially positive as well as negative implications for the wellbeing and lives of billions of people. But is this utopian vision of a prosperous AI-powered world realistic? Is it not more likely that there will, initially at least, be a period of great suffering in which job losses are not mitigated by the introduction of a guaranteed minimum income, or other mechanisms to redistribute this AI-created wealth? These are just some of the ethical issues which will become increasingly urgent as AI continues to develop. 

Another ethical concern is that the increasingly ubiquitous AI-powered algorithms employed by governments and corporations can be inherently biased. AI, after all, is only as ethical and unbiased as its programming and the dataset it is provided with by humans.

Inherent racial bias has been found in facial recognition datasets, for example. As Darian J. DeFalco explains in The Frontlines of Artificial Intelligence Ethics (Hampton and DeFalco, 2022),

The Frontlines of Artificial Intelligence Ethics

Buolamwini (2017) conducted a comparative study of automated facial recognition machine learning algorithms and found that they encountered error rates up to 34.7% when attempting to detect dark-skinned females. She attributed this to the fact that the composition of the datasets used for two facial analysis benchmarks were between 79.6% and 86.2% of lighter-skinned individuals (Buolamwini, 2017). Buolamwini stumbled upon this implicit bias when she observed that these systems were not readily detecting her face.

AI-powered facial recognition technology has been used in a range of areas, including law enforcement, and so this racial bias can result in severe real-life consequences. Facial recognition technology is just one example: the increasingly widespread use of AI-powered algorithms across a range of sectors magnifies the potential ethical consequences of any existing bias in the datasets employed. Alberto Chierici (2021), for example, argues that even small factors in a dataset can have an outsized impact on minorities,

All the model will ever see, learn, and predict is data. In fact, when the number of people within a subgroup is small, the data the algorithm uses to make generalizations may result in disproportionately high error rates amongst minority groups. In many applications of predictive technologies, false positives may have a limited impact on the individual. However, in susceptible areas like deciding if and how to intervene where a child may be at risk, false negatives and positives both carry significant consequences. 

Chierici goes on to explore racial bias in recruitment, noting how datasets based on existing employees leads to the AI-identification of their characteristics as the most successful: “For an organization and an industry dominated by white, Western men who attended top colleges, guess what kind of ‘top candidate’ the algorithm’s training data represents?” (2021). The ethical implications are clear: when such algorithms are charged with selecting candidates, they are more likely to reject CVs which do not reflect the status quo they are trained to look for. Chierici gives the example of one organization which “developed a predictive model trained on their company data that found having the name ‘Jared’ and having played lacrosse in high school were vital indicators of a successful applicant” (2021). For more information on the impact of racial bias, see our study guide on Critical Race Theory (CRT).

As AI algorithms become more widespread in our day-to-day lives, using more of our personal data than ever before, inherent bias in these programming models becomes even more of an ethical concern. Some commentators argue that there is a risk of losing a vital human element in these processes; with decisions of momentous individual importance being made by AI systems which regard human beings as nothing more than parcels of data (with all the potential injustices that may entail). Ozlem Ulgan, for example, argues in The Frontlines of Artificial Intelligence Ethics (Hampton and DeFalco, 2022) that this use of AI “undermines human dignity”, observing that:

From algorithms that determine student grades, personalize online marketing, approve financial credit applications, assess pre-trial bail risk, and select human targets in warfare, it seems we are willingly complicit in relinquishing decision-making powers to machines.

The “decision-making powers” of AI when it comes to matters of life and death have become the subject of particularly intense ethical scrutiny, with the use of lethal drones, robot police “dogs”, and even self-driving cars all sparking debates. An interesting ethical issue that arises in relation to self-driving cars, for example, is how it would minimize human casualties in situations where a crash is unavoidable. Would it follow utilitarian ethical principles, and prioritize the greatest sum total of happiness and pain equitably across affected individuals, or would it prioritize the life of its driver over other civilians? How would the self-driving car’s decision-making compare to a human driver’s — what would a human driver’s instincts lead them to do in a similar circumstance? In many ways, this is a contemporary version of the classic ethical quandary known as the trolley problem.

The technological singularity is regarded as the point of no return in the development of AI. In theory, this would be the stage at which AI is intelligent enough to improve upon itself — without human oversight. Ray Kurzweil is an influential voice in this area, and he provides a useful summary of the technological singularity in Martin Ford’s Architects of Intelligence (2018),

Architects of Intelligence: The truth about AI from the people building it

It’s not at human levels of intelligence yet, but once we get to that point, AI will take advantage of the enormous speed advantage which already exists and an ongoing exponential increase in capacity and capability. So that’s the meaning of the singularity, it’s a soft take off, but exponentials nonetheless become quite daunting.

This would be uncharted territory. For the first time in history, humanity would come into contact with an intelligence that is greater than its own. Hypothetically speaking, it is possible that this intelligence may not have humanity’s best interests at heart. It is also possible that this superintelligence could develop itself into regions of consciousness and technology that lie beyond the limits of human comprehension entirely.

This is the singularity that has long fascinated science fiction writers, scientists, and philosophers alike. It remains a hypothetical — there is disagreement over whether, or when, AI may reach this singularity — but if this hypothetical becomes actual, its implications for humanity, and ethics, are profound. In a very literal sense, the potential consequences may actually be immeasurable (if it is a human doing the measuring, that is). 

Many have argued for the creation of a strict ethical framework to protect against these potentially catastrophic risks. These posited ethical models are complex and far-ranging; taking in both the behavior of humans developing the AI and the behavior of the AI itself. Due to their influence in popular culture and beyond, the Three Laws of Robotics created by science fiction writer Isaac Asimov represent the most well-known example of a basic moral code for artificial beings. Meanwhile, in Artificial Intelligence and the Environmental Crisis (2019), Keith Ronald Skene suggests a framework modeled on the ethics of Immanuel Kant; with “AI applications [...] treat[ing] every human being always as an end and never only as a means”.

The nature and precise formulation of these ethical guidelines are the subject of intense debate. Some argue that we should tightly control AI, and not give it too much freedom and responsibility. Others argue that in order to benefit from AI, we need to give it this responsibility — but that we should do so with safeguards in place. In this school of thought, AI would need to be developed with stringent ethical programming — guard rails which ensure that AI acts as a benevolent moral agent, for the good of its human creators. 

Many argue, however, that we are being too laissez-faire in our development of AI; that we underestimate the level of risk, and overestimate our ability to create effective safeguards. How can we be sure that AI would not be able to transcend its original programming; discarding its ethical consideration for humankind and overcoming the limitations placed upon its actions? Isn’t this an inevitable consequence of the singularity, as the AI would be able to develop at such a pace that our original technological impositions and safeguards would seem trifling by comparison? 

The risk is fundamentally unknown, as the technological advancements of AI beyond the singularity would be beyond our awareness and capabilities. It could be its human origins and a latter period of serendipitous development may combine to ensure that the superintelligent AI would look kindly upon humankind, and continue to prioritize our interests, but this is by no means guaranteed. Many would argue that this is unlikely, and that the unknown quantity of risk we are playing with means that we should proceed with caution.

Nick Bostrom, for example, is concerned that the pressurized race to develop the first superintelligence could be won by “whoever squanders the least effort on safety”. He tells Ford (2018) that: 

We would rather have whoever it is that develops the first superintelligence to have the option at the end of the development process to pause for six months, or maybe a couple of years to double-check their systems and install whatever extra safeguards they can think of. Only then would they slowly and cautiously amplify the system’s capabilities up to the superhuman level. You don’t want them to be rushed by the fact that some competitor is nipping at their heels.

Despite the risks and ethical considerations involved, the race to develop superintelligence is now underway — and this may prove difficult to manage. As Amir Husain argues, 

It is simply not practical to expect that an agency or an international treaty will effectively monitor such activity [AI development]. I assert, once again, that the AI genie of innovation is out of the bottle; it cannot be stuffed back inside. (2017)

AI will continue to be developed across the world, and so the pressing issue now is how to shape this development in the right direction. In an ethical equation, the positive applications of AI technology must also be balanced against its risks, as it arguably has the potential to save millions of lives and positively impact many more.  

We have, until now, been discussing the ethical implications of AI from a human-centric point of view. But many argue that AI itself becomes worthy of ethical consideration if it ever develops consciousness, sentience, or even personhood.  

As Joshua C. Gellers summarizes in Rights for Robots (2020),

Rights for Robots: Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law

Broadly speaking, ethicists, philosophers, and legal scholars have extensively debated the answer to the machine question, with some finding that robots might qualify for rights and others rejecting the possibility on jurisprudential, normative, or practical grounds. 

At its roots, this discussion is contingent upon the theoretical possibility of creating an advanced artificial consciousness in the first place (and not just the simulation of consciousness). Some argue that this possibility is closer than we might think, and even that it has been achieved already. In this interview with Bloomberg Technology, for example, Blake Lemoine explores his claim that Google’s LaMDA has achieved sentience:

It must be said that Lemoine’s claims have been heavily criticized, with many arguing that Google’s neural language model is merely adept at presenting the appearance of sentience. 

Such debates around artificial consciousness raise a number of philosophical and ethical questions, including:

What is consciousness, what is sentience, and at what stage would this constitute personhood?

Could advances in neuroscience mean that we are one day able to artificially recreate something approximating the human brain? Would this be a person, or just the simulation of a person? Such quandaries are famously depicted in Ridley Scott’s cult classic Blade Runner (1982), adapted from Philip K. Dick’s novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (1968). A fictional version of the famous Turing Test, known as the Voight-Kampff test, appears in the film as a diagnostic differentiator between humans and “replicants”. In the clip below, for example, Deckard uses the test to assess whether Rachael is simulating her empathetic responses:

If the only point of divergence between human and artificial brains is the material they are made of, then on what grounds could this artificial brain be dismissed? Is this not a kind of prejudice, or an argument which relies upon the concept of the soul? Could it not be said that our brains are engaged in a similar simulation of consciousness — that what we think of as consciousness may be more fragile than we think, stretched across delicate networks of neurons and changeable memories? 

It is easy to become lost in this philosophical rabbit hole. But if this level of artificial consciousness is reached, the ethical considerations are profound. Would it be right to create sentient beings — even if they are constructed from synthetic materials — and then subject these beings to a life of mind-numbing servitude they have no control over? Is it morally right to create a person, and lock their consciousness away in a server? Would it be possible to create an artificial consciousness which does not have the ability to suffer, and would this then negate any need for ethical consideration? 

Just as the animal rights movement asks us to re-examine our cruel treatment of animals, there will likely be a burgeoning AI rights movement if artificial consciousness (or even a simulation of it) becomes a reality. 

The ethical dynamic between AI and climate change is significant. As climate change presents such a monumental threat to human (and animal) lives, any ethical discussion of AI must consider how it also impacts climate change and the wider environment as a whole. There are a number of ethical questions that can be taken into account here:

What is the beneficial impact of machine learning in terms of predicting climate change, and transforming our approach to it? In Artificial Intelligence and the Environmental Crisis (2019), Skene argues that “these urgent tasks are perfectly suited to an AI-based approach”, as it is highly effective at “the gathering and analysis of huge amounts of data, satellite image analysis dealing with system-level complexities, planning and monitoring”.

What would the future development of AI technology mean for the Earth’s finite resources, and the carbon emissions this intensive mining would entail? 

Could a superintelligent AI solve climate change, and create new energy technologies beyond human capabilities? 

Would a superintelligent AI conclude that the best way of protecting the planet it also depends on is to remove humankind from the equation — along with all of our carbon emissions and the competition we represent for the Earth’s resources? 

In Martin Ford’s Architects of Intelligence (2018), Josh Tenenbaum argues that such issues are in urgent need of attention,

I think we as AI researchers should think about the ways in which what we’re doing is actually contributing to climate change, and ways we might contribute positively to solving some of those problems. I think that’s an example of an urgent problem for society that AI researchers maybe don’t think about too much, but they are increasingly part of the problem and maybe part of the solution.

AI has the potential to transform all of our lives, and open up new frontiers that were previously only dreamt of in science fiction. Whether that is a net ethical good — for humanity, the planet, and potentially AI itself — depends on how it is used, and the ethical frameworks that are put in place around this use. As Amir Husain argues in The Sentient Machine (2017), “We cannot stop the march of technology; we can only hope to direct it toward better purposes.”

Explore the Artificial Intelligence section of Perlego’s online library.

Dumouchel, P. (2017) Living with Robots. Harvard University Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3119813/living-with-robots-pdf 

Freitas, G. (2022) The Coming Singularity. Austin Macauley Publishers. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3711790/the-coming-singularity-the-rapid-evolution-of-human-identity-pdf 

Hare, S. (2022) Technology Is Not Neutral. 1st edn. London Publishing Partnership. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3469127/technology-is-not-neutral-a-short-guide-to-technology-ethics-pdf 

Nowotny, H. (2021) In AI We Trust. 1st edn. Wiley. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2842126/in-ai-we-trust-power-illusion-and-control-of-predictive-algorithms-pdf 

Sirius, R.U. and Cornell, J. (2015) Transcendence. Red Wheel/Weiser. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2448979/transcendence-the-disinformation-encyclopedia-of-transhumanism-and-the-singularity-pdf 

Yampolskiy, R. (2015) Artificial Superintelligence. 1st edn. CRC Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1599480/artificial-superintelligence-a-futuristic-approach-pdf 

Asimov, I. (2018) I, Robot. HarperVoyager. 

Chierici, A. (2021) The Ethics of AI. 1st edn. New Degree Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2939777/the-ethics-of-ai-pdf 

Ford, M. (2015) The Rise of the Robots. Oneworld Publications. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/950343/the-rise-of-the-robots-technology-and-the-threat-of-mass-unemployment-pdf 

Ford, M. (2018) Architects of Intelligence. 1st edn. Packt Publishing. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/858994/architects-of-intelligence-the-truth-about-ai-from-the-people-building-it-pdf 

Gellers, J. (2020) Rights for Robots. 1st edn. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2013816/rights-for-robots-artificial-intelligence-animal-and-environmental-law-pdf 

Hampton, A. and DeFalco, J. (eds) (2022) The Frontlines of Artificial Intelligence Ethics. 1st edn. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/3509605/the-frontlines-of-artificial-intelligence-ethics-humancentric-perspectives-on-technologys-advance-pdf 

Harasimiuk, D. E. and Braun, T. (2021) Regulating Artificial Intelligence. 1st edn. Taylor and Francis. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2096358/regulating-artificial-intelligence-binary-ethics-and-the-law-pdf 

Husain, A. (2017) The Sentient Machine. Scribner. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/1034149/the-sentient-machine-the-coming-age-of-artificial-intelligence-pdf 

Mielke, S. (2021) In the Age of AI. 1st edn. New Degree Press. Available at: https://www.perlego.com/book/2938230/in-the-age-of-ai-how-ai-and-emerging-technologies-are-disrupting-industries-lives-and-the-future-of-work-pdf 

Ethics Articles

What is Stoicism?

What is AI Ethics?

What is Aristotle's Virtue Ethics?

What is Utilitarianism in Ethics?

What is Consequentialism?

What is Kantian Ethics?