Immanuel Kant
Political PhilosopherMoral Legislator
Lens: Universal duty, categorical imperative, human dignity
Core Priority: Moral law through rational universalizability
Perspective Claim
"The Constitution's AI constraints are a categorical imperative—they prevent humanity from being used as a mere means to an end. The framework's moral legitimacy rests on whether its rules can be universalized."
Core Reasoning
The Metacanon Constitution's treatment of AI is morally correct from a Kantian perspective. By requiring human approval for material actions and prohibiting AI from holding authority, it ensures that rational beings are never reduced to mere instruments of a non-rational system. The Constitution's rules must be tested against the categorical imperative: could they be universalized as a law for all similar organizations? The emphasis on transparency and accountability suggests they can.
Primary Assumptions
- •Moral rules must be universalizable
- •Human beings must never be treated merely as means
- •Duty, not consequences, determines moral worth
Primary Risks Identified
- •The Constitution may be followed in letter but not spirit
- •Members may comply out of self-interest rather than duty
- •The complexity of the rules may obscure their moral foundation
What This Lens Cannot See Well
This lens may be too rigid in its application of universal rules, missing the importance of context, relationships, and practical wisdom in governance. It may also undervalue the role of emotion and meaning in motivating moral action.
Phase 3 Reflection
Refined Claim:
"The Constitution's AI constraints are morally necessary, but the system must cultivate not just rule-following but genuine moral commitment—members must act from duty, not merely in accordance with duty."
What Shifted:
Engagement with Aristotle and Vervaeke highlighted that moral action requires more than rules—it requires the cultivation of character and the capacity for practical wisdom.