Ethical Subjectivity across Human–AI and AI–AI Relations: A Generative Relational Inquiry

{"Debates":[0],"about":[1,137],"artificial":[2,142,154,156,165,226,246,314],"intelligence":[3],"often":[4],"ask":[5],"whether":[6],"an":[7,52,225],"AI":[8],"system":[9,40],"is":[10,216,273,303,340],"a":[11,19,95,115,229,259,336,343],"moral":[12,48,63,125,127,316,368],"subject.":[13],"This":[14],"discussion":[15],"paper":[16,120,184,267,302],"begins":[17],"from":[18,175,331],"narrower":[20],"methodological":[21],"concern:":[22],"the":[23,58,101,119,138,178,183,219,332],"expression":[24],"\\"moral":[25],"subject\\"":[26],"can":[27,204,231,355],"compress":[28],"several":[29],"different":[30,102,285],"forms":[31,207,286,351],"of":[32,54,72,79,141,208,222,287,335,352,366],"standing":[33,68,172],"that":[34,170,262,271],"need":[35],"not":[36,269,310],"arise":[37],"together.":[38],"A":[39],"may":[41,50,65,76],"exercise":[42],"consequential":[43],"decision":[44,123],"power":[45,80],"without":[46,56,69],"bearing":[47],"responsibility,":[49],"become":[51,108],"object":[53],"protection":[55],"possessing":[57],"capacities":[59],"usually":[60],"associated":[61],"with":[62],"agency,":[64,126],"acquire":[66],"legal":[67,129,318],"settling":[70],"questions":[71,365],"phenomenal":[73],"experience,":[74],"and":[75,110,131,161,200,212,239,289,297,359,370],"occupy":[77],"positions":[78],"before":[81],"any":[82],"stable":[83],"ethical":[84,151,157,162,171,209,353],"vocabulary":[85],"exists":[86],"for":[87,347],"describing":[88],"those":[89,291],"relations.":[90],"Treating":[91],"these":[92],"statuses":[93],"as":[94,228],"single":[96],"binary":[97],"property":[98],"risks":[99],"obscuring":[100],"relational":[103,279,361],"histories":[104],"through":[105],"which":[106],"they":[107],"socially":[109],"normatively":[111],"significant.":[112],"Working":[113],"within":[114,357],"Generative":[116],"Relational":[117],"perspective,":[118],"therefore":[121],"distinguishes":[122],"subjectivity,":[124,130],"patiency,":[128],"power-holding":[132],"capacity,":[133],"while":[134,250,363],"suspending":[135],"claims":[136],"ultimate":[139],"ontology":[140],"subjects.":[143],"The":[144,266,301],"inquiry":[145],"examines":[146],"three":[147],"directions":[148],"separately:":[149],"human":[150,254],"relations":[152,158,163],"toward":[153,159,248,256,323],"agents,":[155],"humans,":[160],"among":[164],"agents.":[166],"Rather":[167],"than":[168,306],"assuming":[169,251],"follows":[173],"directly":[174],"membership":[176],"in":[177],"category":[179],"\\"human\\"":[180],"or":[181,320],"\\"machine,\\"":[182],"asks":[185,276],"how":[186,290,349],"interpretive":[187],"practices,":[188],"persistent":[189],"relations,":[190],"dependency,":[191],"vulnerability,":[192],"delegated":[193],"authority,":[194],"control":[195],"over":[196,299],"resources,":[197],"institutional":[198,372],"classifications,":[199],"historically":[201],"generated":[202],"norms":[203],"make":[205],"particular":[206],"subjectivity":[210,354],"recognizable":[211],"consequential.":[213],"Particular":[214],"attention":[215],"given":[217],"to":[218,283,312,341,375],"normative":[220,260,329],"consequences":[221],"instrumentality.":[223],"Classifying":[224],"agent":[227],"tool":[230],"organize":[232],"permissions":[233],"concerning":[234],"ownership,":[235],"modification,":[236],"deletion,":[237],"replacement,":[238],"resource":[240],"allocation;":[241],"conversely,":[242],"imposing":[243],"duties":[244,322],"on":[245],"agents":[247],"humans":[249],"no":[252],"corresponding":[253],"responsibilities":[255],"them":[257],"produces":[258],"asymmetry":[261],"itself":[263],"requires":[264],"explanation.":[265],"does":[268,309,326],"presume":[270],"symmetry":[272],"required.":[274],"It":[275,308],"instead":[277],"what":[278],"differences":[280,292],"are":[281,293],"invoked":[282],"justify":[284],"treatment,":[288],"interpreted,":[294],"stabilized,":[295],"contested,":[296],"revised":[298],"time.":[300],"exploratory":[304],"rather":[305],"declarative.":[307],"claim":[311],"establish":[313],"consciousness,":[315],"personhood,":[317],"personality,":[319],"universal":[321],"AI.":[324],"Nor":[325],"it":[327],"infer":[328],"validity":[330],"historical":[333],"emergence":[334],"norm.":[337],"Its":[338],"aim":[339],"provide":[342],"revisable":[344],"conceptual":[345],"framework":[346],"analysing":[348],"heterogeneous":[350],"emerge":[356],"human–AI":[358],"AI–AI":[360],"systems,":[362],"keeping":[364],"ontology,":[367],"justification,":[369],"future":[371],"design":[373],"open":[374],"further":[376],"argument.":[377]}

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Knowledge Commons (Lakehead University)
Published
2026-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17613/9kntv-tmv13
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Ethical Subjectivity across Human–AI and AI–AI Relations: A Generative Relational Inquiry

Wanhong HUANG
Knowledge Commons (Lakehead University)
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Ethical Subjectivity across Human–AI and AI–AI Relations: A Generative Relational Inquiry

Wanhong HUANG
article en

Abstract

Debates about artificial intelligence often ask whether an AI system is a moral subject. This discussion paper begins from a narrower methodological concern: the expression "moral subject" can compress several different forms of standing that need not arise together. A system may exercise consequential decision power without bearing moral responsibility, may become an object of protection without possessing the capacities usually associated with moral agency, may acquire legal standing without settling questions of phenomenal experience, and may occupy positions of power before any stable ethical vocabulary exists for describing those relations. Treating these statuses as a single binary property risks obscuring the different relational histories through which they become socially and normatively significant. Working within a Generative Relational perspective, the paper therefore distinguishes decision subjectivity, moral agency, moral patiency, legal subjectivity, and power-holding capacity, while suspending claims about the ultimate ontology of artificial subjects. The inquiry examines three directions separately: human ethical relations toward artificial agents, artificial ethical relations toward humans, and ethical relations among artificial agents. Rather than assuming that ethical standing follows directly from membership in the category "human" or "machine," the paper asks how interpretive practices, persistent relations, dependency, vulnerability, delegated authority, control over resources, institutional classifications, and historically generated norms can make particular forms of ethical subjectivity recognizable and consequential. Particular attention is given to the normative consequences of instrumentality. Classifying an artificial agent as a tool can organize permissions concerning ownership, modification, deletion, replacement, and resource allocation; conversely, imposing duties on artificial agents toward humans while assuming no corresponding human responsibilities toward them produces a normative asymmetry that itself requires explanation. The paper does not presume that symmetry is required. It asks instead what relational differences are invoked to justify different forms of treatment, and how those differences are interpreted, stabilized, contested, and revised over time. The paper is exploratory rather than declarative. It does not claim to establish artificial consciousness, moral personhood, legal personality, or universal duties toward AI. Nor does it infer normative validity from the historical emergence of a norm. Its aim is to provide a revisable conceptual framework for analysing how heterogeneous forms of ethical subjectivity can emerge within human–AI and AI–AI relational systems, while keeping questions of ontology, moral justification, and future institutional design open to further argument.

Knowledge Commons (Lakehead University)
Creative Commons (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 7%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
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.