MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS AND THE DANGERS OF AI
“Magnificent Humanity” is a striking title, perhaps catching the eye of anyone who places humanity, rather than the divine, at the centre of their ethics. The test of any ethical framework, ours included, is whether it makes life more human, just, and free. On that test, Magnifica Humanitas deserves a careful reading.
The convergence is real
We can endorse the encyclical’s positions on AI without reservation. AI isn’t neutral; it carries the values of those who design and deploy it. Private technological power has outgrown state oversight and needs democratic accountability. Workers facing displacement deserve protection and retraining. Disinformation threatens democracy. Children need protection from algorithmic exploitation. Autonomous weapons must never make life-and-death decisions without human responsibility. Data extraction from vulnerable populations is a new form of colonialism (resources mined for the benefit of wealthy interests while rarely benefitting from the derived insights). The digital economy hides labour exploitation that demands transparency. We could go on.
Where we might disagree – until we look closer
It’s interesting to press on some points which initially look like disagreements with a humanist view.
Take suffering. The encyclical insists that “humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them”, and warns against a technology that “promises to free us from all weakness”.
Surely humanists would say: reduce suffering as much as possible, full stop. But read what he actually says: “it is right to strive to alleviate the suffering that marks human life”. He’s not glorifying suffering. He’s arguing against the project of eliminating finitude itself – the transhumanist dream of engineering our way out of being human. And on that, we agree. Meaning can emerge from suffering; suffering should still be reduced. These are not in tension.
Or take his critique of transhumanism. He frames it theologically, but his actual worry is that ranking lives by “enhancement” leads to treating some as “less useful, less desirable, or less worthy”. That’s eugenic logic, and we share the concern. We just arrive at it through equality and human rights rather than through humans being made in God’s image.
The real difference is in the starting point
The Pope grounds all this in humans being created in the image of God and fulfilled in Christ. We ground it in reason, shared humanity, and our capacity for moral reflection without appeal to the divine. These are not interchangeable, but ethical agreement doesn’t require metaphysical agreement. Those starting from different places can still reach the same destination.
Of course there are other fundamental differences between humanists and the Catholic Church. The encyclical touches on abortion and euthanasia, defines the family in a specific way, and reserves a privileged interpretive role for religion in public life. But these are not part of the technology argument.
A shared question, in different voices
In a pluralistic society, voices from multiple perspectives need to converge on shared standards. Malta will spend the coming years shaping how AI is used in our schools, workplaces, healthcare, and democracy. On this, Catholics and humanists may have more to say together than they have to disagree about.
Recent Comments