Individuating artificial moral patients

Abstract We may create artificial intelligence (AI) systems that matter morally for their own sake and thus are moral patients. In that case, we would have reasons to treat them well and avoid treating them badly. How we should treat AI moral patients depends in part on how they are to be individuated, that is, how they should be counted and identified, at a time and over time. If we don’t know how to individuate them, then we won’t know how we should treat them. In turn, we face several moral risks. After describing four types of moral risks posed by the individuation question, I discuss why individuating AI patients is harder than individuating human persons, diagnosing why existing theories of personal identity do not address these risks.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Philosophical Studies
Published
2025-09-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-025-02409-6
Primary Topic
Mental Health and Psychiatry
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Individuating artificial moral patients

Christopher Register
Philosophical Studies
Mental Health and Psychiatry
article

Individuating artificial moral patients

Christopher Register
article en

Abstract

Abstract We may create artificial intelligence (AI) systems that matter morally for their own sake and thus are moral patients. In that case, we would have reasons to treat them well and avoid treating them badly. How we should treat AI moral patients depends in part on how they are to be individuated, that is, how they should be counted and identified, at a time and over time. If we don’t know how to individuate them, then we won’t know how we should treat them. In turn, we face several moral risks. After describing four types of moral risks posed by the individuation question, I discuss why individuating AI patients is harder than individuating human persons, diagnosing why existing theories of personal identity do not address these risks.

Philosophical StudiesVol. 182(11-12)
University of Oxford (GB)
European Commission
Openalex Percentile: Top 75%
Mental Health and Psychiatry
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.