تأثیر هوش مصنوعی بر اخلاق و سیاست ‏با تأکید بر دیدگاه هایدگر

1. Statement of the Problem: In the era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, commonly known as the digital age, we are witnessing a fundamental transformation in the art of statecraft and the emergence of the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance. The concepts of "AI sovereignty" and "AI governance" are increasingly utilized within political science and philosophy. AI has become the core nucleus of the contemporary scientific revolution; since 2010, parallel with breakthroughs in programming, highly sophisticated software has emerged, and the supercomputers required to build the most advanced AI models have been mobilized.  
Politicians, ideologues, and scientists can no longer ignore its new conceptual paradigms and tools. However, the widespread deployment of AI has brought long-standing, fundamental problems in political philosophy back to the fore with renewed urgency, while simultaneously generating entirely new philosophical dilemmas.
AI has challenged numerous ethical values and heavily influenced political and interpersonal relations, effectively instigating another Copernican revolution. At the center of this revolution lies AI itself, which substitutes machine- and robot-based living for moral, spiritual, and religious values. With the rise of electronic government (e-government), AI has perceptibly altered social and political structures. In the realm of ethics, the application of AI raises a critical question: How can a single algorithmic prescription be applied to all members of society? Treating every individual identically is not only impossible but highly objectionable. Furthermore, AI appears inefficient or even inapplicable within the domain of practical and moral reason (al-aql al-amali). A major part of ethical principles fluctuates based on temporal and spatial contexts, as well as varying human circumstances. Ethical foundations are not equivalent to mathematical data where a specific formula consistently yields a predetermined result; rather, they are rooted in human conscience and innate nature (fitrah), demanding specific dynamics according to diverse situational requirements.
Research Objective and Focus: The primary focus of this research is to demonstrate the excessive, illegitimate dominance and sovereignty of AI over all dimensions of both material and spiritual human life. The study emphasizes the priority of virtuous moral behavior, normative rules, and human legal principles in controlling governance. Ultimately, it aims to defend the preservation of the world, human existence, life values, and existing ethical principles in order to delegitimize the mathematical, mechanistic rationality of the modern world. Beyond exposing the illegitimacy of technocratic democratic systems, this paper highlights the necessity of new industrial democracy movements to combat the ruling technocrats of the political system, allowing human rationality to supplant technological rationality.
3. Research Methodology: Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method grounded in Martin Heidegger's philosophy and comparing it with the
perspectives of other thinkers, this paper elucidates the Heideggerian view on the impact of AI on the contemporary world. It classifies philosophical reactions to this crisis, contrasting pessimistic, critical phenomenologists with moderate ones who seek to manage the status quo.
Research Results: The study demonstrates that AI sovereignty represents the absolute domination and hegemony of technology and modernity over all facets of human life. This state of affairs has drawn severe criticism from philosophers, theologians, and phenomenologists. Their primary objection stems from the conceptual conflation and integration of domains that cannot logically coexist under a single principle. Ethical discussions—centered on conscience, innate nature, and practical reason—cannot be subsumed under the conceptual frameworks of theoretical reason, such as mathematical and mechanical parameters. Yet, from the perspective of Cartesian rationality, the universe as a whole can be described by a mathematical algorithm—a premise realized today through AI.
Phenomenology acts primarily as a reaction against this physical and mathematical rationality. It does not present itself as a mere negation of modernity; instead, it offers the possibility of a recovery that is not a superficial patch, but a fundamental reformation of human and political society. Phenomenology actively combats a digital lifestyle that some individuals might prefer over morality under the guise of modernity. While it historically holds a smaller share of discourse compared to liberal and critical paradigms, and while the newer approach of post-phenomenology examines the human-technology relationship without addressing political systems, many assumptions of phenomenological political philosophy appear idealistic in the era of AI governance.
In this context, Heidegger posits that the ultimate goal of politics must be the "politics of Being" (Seinspolitik), working to strip the alienating impact of technology from human existence. As other scholars have argued, politics in the AI era reduces itself to human-to-technology or human-to-human relations, completely neglecting Being and the human lifeworld (Lebenswelt). Regarding the question of who rules, phenomenological theorists—who can scarcely be labeled traditional political philosophers—turn their attention to pre-modern republics. Thinkers like Feenberg and Aguilar emphasize democracy, while Dallmayr stresses global democracy. Conversely, Heidegger and Sokolowski criticizethe loss of subject autonomy within AI governance. They argue that the objective must be a return to pre-modern republics that are detached from technology and centered on human Being, allowing the autonomous subject to be liberated from the mathematical rationality of both liberal and authoritarian worlds. Pessimistic and critical phenomenologists maintain that these technologies create highly dysfunctional, undesirable scenarios, viewing AI governance as a dystopia, whereas moderate phenomenologists (such as Ihde, Hickman, Dallmayr, and Aguilar) attempt to establish control over the existing state of affairs.