In my prior guest column for the OWL, I addressed the question of whether we could consider AI to be “kosher” or morally acceptable. Some of the more inquisitive amongst you may immediately have begun wondering then, “can workers seek religious exemptions from using AI at work?”
While I cannot prognosticate as to the faith traditions and beliefs of all the readers of this paper, I can at least, in my capacity as Doane’s Catholic Newman Club Advisor, offer my own perspective.
Before we ask such a question, we should perhaps expand further on our prior kosher example by noting that at its core AI requires that morally discerning individuals set clear boundaries. These will vary, it should go without saying. No two people, or religious traditions for that matter, are ever exactly the same. But if we were to begin building the case for a religious exemption from using AI in the workspace, we might wish to focus on the word: relationship.
Work, as Karl Marx famously observed, is fundamentally a matter of social relations. Relationships between the worker and the boss for sure. But also, relationships between workers themselves. Humans are, after all, social animals and we may dare go so far as to say that it is in effect our relationships which define us as a species. No other creature invests so much time into the development of its own self as do humans; and to what end do we develop our sense of self? As any psychologist can attest, we develop the self that it might be shared with others. Through conversation, activities, and yes, through work. Therefore, the question becomes – does the usage of AI on the job help or hurt relationships between people?
While Marx correctly observed that labour relations fundamentally alienate workers from their fellow human beings, the Catholic Church today observes that AI fundamentally accelerates that natural alienation already felt amongst workers as a result of their socialized employment. Indeed, she might also note that AI runs the risk of alienating us further from our neighbours and – by extension – our creator embodied in them.
If, for example, I seek to use AI to schedule all my meetings rather than acknowledging the inherent dignity and humanity of those with whom I am working – have I created a space wherein relationships can be formed and the matters of the self disclosed? No. To the contrary, when I outsource such matters of coordination to AI, I explicitly deny those around me from having the opportunity of such small, seemingly fleeting interactions. I restrict others from engaging with me and I from them. Under such circumstances I will never come to know the small, odd intricacies of those with whom I work. Nor would I have the opportunity for any number of side conversations that might arise in the midst of manually conducting my affairs.
How many one-off email threads have borne fruit in the form of long-standing, indeed life-changing friendships? Within the context of my own work at Doane, I can point to no less than five. And how many relationships might then have never begun were AI with us from the start?
Immediately we might then begin to craft our religious exemption case along the lines – as Popes Francis and Leo have noted – that AI can never be morally justified when it fundamentally replaces or otherwise negates the role of the human within the workplace.
Likewise, as you sit here reading this column you’ve no doubt learned a little about me. Through my writing – a uniquely human faculty – I’ve shared with you an expression of my deepest self. What if AI were to simply replace all such writing? What if in the name of so-called, “efficiency” we determined that the writing of emails was but a waste of time? How much not only of ourselves would we lose, and indeed, how much of our minds? How many relationships might we then lose out on?
As with the question regarding religious exemptions, I think you already know the answer…
