fbpx
Articles

4 ethical issues in technology to watch for in 2022

/
January 4, 2022

For the past few years, I have had the opportunity to highlight some of the top ethical issues in technology to be aware of as we begin a new year. In 2021, I wrote about the concerning trends of content moderation — especially in regards to free speech and religious freedom in the digital public square — as well as the growing concerns over facial recognition technologies and the ongoing debate over personal privacy. While many of these same issues will likely carry over into 2022, some have given way to larger concerns about pervasive surveillance, in addition to the threat of digital authoritarianism around the world.

For all of the good uses of technology, it has profound and consequential effects on us as humans. It shapes us in particular ways, including how we see and engage with those around us. While many today are reframing what it means to be human, Christians know that every person is created in God’s image and has inherent dignity. Furthermore, we know that our identity is rooted in God our Creator and that we are to love him and love our neighbor as ourselves (Matt. 22:37-39). This question of human identity is a central to many of the top ethical issues of the day, especially in our technologically rich society.

If 2021 taught us anything, it is that we need to take these particular ethical issues seriously. The church needs to understand that technology is becoming one of the primary disciplers of our people, forming us in ways that we may never fully understand. In light of these realities, here are four of the top issues to keep an eye on in 2022.

Content moderation and free speech

Of all of the issues our society faces today in terms of technology, there is widespread agreement across partisan lines that content moderation is one of the most consequential debates today, even if that agreement only consists of an acknowledgement that the current state of things is not sustainable in the long term. Some argue that technology companies need to moderate more content — especially around fake news, misinformation, and hate speech — while others argue that these companies are simply suppressing certain types of speech that they disagree with on ideological grounds and acting as unaccountable “moderators” in the open marketplace of ideas.

In 2022, these issues will only become more controversial and divisive as major political parties in the United States and in countries around the world debate and possibly legislate how and by what standard these companies should moderate or suppress certain types of content online. One of the key elements in this debate will be where to draw the line over free speech and the nature of religious freedom in the public square.

Misinformation/fake news

This past year, I have heard from countless pastors and ministry leaders about how to navigate the rise of fake news, misinformation, and conspiracy theories in their local churches. Some Christian leaders argue that misinformation is not a problem plaguing the local church, but this is often because many of us have become so accustomed to it. And almost no one truly believes they are spreading a conspiracy theory or fake news given that they believe it to be true. 

One of the most subtle and deleterious effects of technology today is how our society perceives truth and how the information overload we face each day is causing all of us to lose a grip on reality. This isn’t an isolated occurrence but has become a cultural practice across political, social, and even religious grounds. While this debate is endlessly complex, one of the most countercultural things we can do in the midst of information overload is to simply say, “I don’t know.” Conversations about these problems will only grow in the coming year as our society awakens to the fact that misinformation and fake news have real-world consequences.

Digital surveillance and data privacy

Amidst many of the digital issues of the day, there is one issue that seems to be right outside of the limelight but will likely be a central ethical concern in 2022. With the ubiquity of technology and our dependence on it, there is the vast and growing concern over personal privacy and the use of data. Governments around the world are beginning to or have already regulated the flow of data and who has access to it, often focusing on a right to privacy. In the U.S., there has been a continued push for a federal digital privacy law similar to that found in the European Union with the GDPR and states like California with the CCPA. In 2021, much of the movement in this space centered around what it could look like for the U.S. to have a “digital bill of rights” as we move further into this digital first world.

For Christians, a right to privacy is not derived from the moral autonomy of the individual, as in many non-Christian ethical theories, but from the dignity of all people. One of the functions of privacy in this world is a way to care for the vulnerable among us and uphold their dignity as image-bearers in a technologically-rich society. As we see each day, however, is that data and information can and will be used, abused, and manipulated toward selfish ends because of the prevailing nature of sin in the world. 

Unfortunately, technology will be used to control and strip others of their dignity. One of the main ways this will be done in our digital society is through the misuse of data and information. Thus, there is a great need for a right to privacy grounded in a transcendent reality of human dignity, rather than the pursuit of autonomy and individual freedom. In 2022, we may see some more movement from local, state, and federal governments to address these important issues of data collection, personal privacy, and the use of this information by private and public actors alike.

Digital authoritarianism

In 2021, we saw the explosive growth of technology control entire people groups and even nations. While much of the focus in the West was on how technologies are shaping how we see the world around us, throughout the world these tools are still being used to prop up strong men and authoritarian regimes — bent on controlling the flow of information and subjecting people to massive propaganda in order to retain power and positions over those who are vulnerable. One of the clearest examples of digital authoritarianism is seen the continued genocide of the Uyghur people in China under the repressive Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

As I recently wrote, the CCP uses countless forms of technology to suppress basic human rights, surveil its citizens, and subjugate our fellow image-bearers to some of the worst forms of both physical and mental abuse. Technology is one of the most powerful tools the CCP has in its arsenal to control and manipulate others. But this heavy hand of authoritarianism isn’t limited to the CCP. Nations around the world have shown that they will use any means necessary to limit access to information, suppress free expression, and cut people off from the outside world altogether. In recent years, we have seen this take place in Iran, Russia, Belarus, and most recently Cuba. 

As we move into 2022, it is clear that digital authoritarianism is becoming commonplace around the world and will only continue to rise as technologies become more accurate and accessible to those bent on suppressing human rights and religious freedom in order to maintain position or power over others.

As Christians engage the most pressing issues of our day, we must do so with a rich vision of human dignity and a public theology that is rooted in the truthfulness of Scripture. While ethical issues with technology may seem unimportant or pale in comparison to others at times, we must remember that these concerns are central to many of the ongoing debates we have been having for many years. Looking out onto the ethical and policy landscape of 2022, there is much to be hopeful about, but there are also many pressing issues that need to be addressed by thoughtful and rich engagement from the church — as she proclaims the goodness of God’s design and the truth of the gospel to a world desperately in need of both truth and grace.

Jason Thacker

Jason Thacker serves as senior fellow focusing on Christian ethics, human dignity, public theology, and technology. He also leads the ERLC Research Institute. In addition to his work at the ERLC, he serves as assistant professor of philosophy and ethics at Boyce College in Louisville Kentucky. He is the author … Read More

Article 12: The Future of AI

We affirm that AI will continue to be developed in ways that we cannot currently imagine or understand, including AI that will far surpass many human abilities. God alone has the power to create life, and no future advancements in AI will usurp Him as the Creator of life. The church has a unique role in proclaiming human dignity for all and calling for the humane use of AI in all aspects of society.

We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.

Genesis 1; Isaiah 42:8; Romans 1:20-21; 5:2; Ephesians 1:4-6; 2 Timothy 1:7-9; Revelation 5:9-10

Article 11: Public Policy

We affirm that the fundamental purposes of government are to protect human beings from harm, punish those who do evil, uphold civil liberties, and to commend those who do good. The public has a role in shaping and crafting policies concerning the use of AI in society, and these decisions should not be left to those who develop these technologies or to governments to set norms.

We deny that AI should be used by governments, corporations, or any entity to infringe upon God-given human rights. AI, even in a highly advanced state, should never be delegated the governing authority that has been granted by an all-sovereign God to human beings alone. 

Romans 13:1-7; Acts 10:35; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 10: War

We affirm that the use of AI in warfare should be governed by love of neighbor and the principles of just war. The use of AI may mitigate the loss of human life, provide greater protection of non-combatants, and inform better policymaking. Any lethal action conducted or substantially enabled by AI must employ 5 human oversight or review. All defense-related AI applications, such as underlying data and decision-making processes, must be subject to continual review by legitimate authorities. When these systems are deployed, human agents bear full moral responsibility for any actions taken by the system.

We deny that human agency or moral culpability in war can be delegated to AI. No nation or group has the right to use AI to carry out genocide, terrorism, torture, or other war crimes.

Genesis 4:10; Isaiah 1:16-17; Psalm 37:28; Matthew 5:44; 22:37-39; Romans 13:4

Article 9: Security

We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14

Article 8: Data & Privacy

We affirm that privacy and personal property are intertwined individual rights and choices that should not be violated by governments, corporations, nation-states, and other groups, even in the pursuit of the common good. While God knows all things, it is neither wise nor obligatory to have every detail of one’s life open to society.

We deny the manipulative and coercive uses of data and AI in ways that are inconsistent with the love of God and love of neighbor. Data collection practices should conform to ethical guidelines that uphold the dignity of all people. We further deny that consent, even informed consent, although requisite, is the only necessary ethical standard for the collection, manipulation, or exploitation of personal data—individually or in the aggregate. AI should not be employed in ways that distort truth through the use of generative applications. Data should not be mishandled, misused, or abused for sinful purposes to reinforce bias, strengthen the powerful, or demean the weak.

Exodus 20:15, Psalm 147:5; Isaiah 40:13-14; Matthew 10:16 Galatians 6:2; Hebrews 4:12-13; 1 John 1:7 

Article 7: Work

We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts. AI can be used in ways that aid our work or allow us to make fuller use of our gifts. The church has a Spirit-empowered responsibility to help care for those who lose jobs and to encourage individuals, communities, employers, and governments to find ways to invest in the development of human beings and continue making vocational contributions to our lives together.

We deny that human worth and dignity is reducible to an individual’s economic contributions to society alone. Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

Genesis 1:27; 2:5; 2:15; Isaiah 65:21-24; Romans 12:6-8; Ephesians 4:11-16

Article 6: Sexuality

We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes. AI should not intrude upon or substitute for the biblical expression of sexuality between a husband and wife according to God’s design for human marriage.

Genesis 1:26-29; 2:18-25; Matthew 5:27-30; 1 Thess 4:3-4

Article 5: Bias

We affirm that, as a tool created by humans, AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion. AI should be designed and used in such ways that treat all human beings as having equal worth and dignity. AI should be utilized as a tool to identify and eliminate bias inherent in human decision-making.

We deny that AI should be designed or used in ways that violate the fundamental principle of human dignity for all people. Neither should AI be used in ways that reinforce or further any ideology or agenda, seeking to subjugate human autonomy under the power of the state.

Micah 6:8; John 13:34; Galatians 3:28-29; 5:13-14; Philippians 2:3-4; Romans 12:10

Article 4: Medicine

We affirm that AI-related advances in medical technologies are expressions of God’s common grace through and for people created in His image and that these advances will increase our capacity to provide enhanced medical diagnostics and therapeutic interventions as we seek to care for all people. These advances should be guided by basic principles of medical ethics, including beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice, which are all consistent with the biblical principle of loving our neighbor.

We deny that death and disease—effects of the Fall—can ultimately be eradicated apart from Jesus Christ. Utilitarian applications regarding healthcare distribution should not override the dignity of human life. Fur- 3 thermore, we reject the materialist and consequentialist worldview that understands medical applications of AI as a means of improving, changing, or completing human beings.

Matthew 5:45; John 11:25-26; 1 Corinthians 15:55-57; Galatians 6:2; Philippians 2:4

Article 3: Relationship of AI & Humanity

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.

We deny that humans can or should cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI that will ever be created. Only humanity will be judged by God on the basis of our actions and that of the tools we create. While technology can be created with a moral use in view, it is not a moral agent. Humans alone bear the responsibility for moral decision making.

Romans 2:6-8; Galatians 5:19-21; 2 Peter 1:5-8; 1 John 2:1

Article 2: AI as Technology

We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.

We deny that the use of AI is morally neutral. It is not worthy of man’s hope, worship, or love. Since the Lord Jesus alone can atone for sin and reconcile humanity to its Creator, technology such as AI cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs. We further deny the goodness and benefit of any application of AI that devalues or degrades the dignity and worth of another human being. 

Genesis 2:25; Exodus 20:3; 31:1-11; Proverbs 16:4; Matthew 22:37-40; Romans 3:23

Article 1: Image of God

We affirm that God created each human being in His image with intrinsic and equal worth, dignity, and moral agency, distinct from all creation, and that humanity’s creativity is intended to reflect God’s creative pattern.

We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.

Genesis 1:26-28; 5:1-2; Isaiah 43:6-7; Jeremiah 1:5; John 13:34; Colossians 1:16; 3:10; Ephesians 4:24