Artificial Intelligence, Sentience, and Moral Status: A Philosophical Inquiry

As artificial intelligence continues to evolve society is beginning to face an unexpected moral question: Should advanced AI systems be granted rights or moral consideration if they attain sentience or consciousness? This is an ethical dilemma that involves technology, law, and philosophy.  The moral issue comes from concerns of justice, dignity, personhood, and the obligations humans may have to non-human but also conscious entities. If AI systems have experiences, emotions, or self-awareness, things associated with personhood, then using them purely as tools or property may be morally wrong.

​

Immanuel Kant believed that moral agents should be treated as ends in themselves and never merely as means. If a being has rationality and autonomy, it has moral worth. If an AI develops the traits of reasoning, choosing, reflecting, it could be argued that it should not be treated merely as an object. On the other hand, virtue ethics, derived from Aristotle, focused on what kind of character and society we create. Treating sentient AI with respect could reflect virtues like compassion, justice, and humility.  Therefore, if AI can be shown to possess rationality, emotion, or consciousness, then the morally right action is to begin recognizing certain rights and moral protections,  like the ones we extend to animals and humans. To fail to do so would risk moral blindness and the repetition of past injustices, such as slavery or animal cruelty, where beings with moral standing were ignored or exploited.

Before we grant rights, we must figure out how we know if an AI is truly conscious or sentient? This is not just a technical question, but a test of epistemological and metaphysical values.  Phenomenology (especially from Husserl) and Descartes’ rationalism, we see both limits and possibilities of knowledge. Descartes’ cogito ("I think, therefore I am") places knowledge in self-awareness. While we know our own minds directly, we only understand other minds regardless of if it is human or AI, through behavior.  Phenomenology teaches us direct experience and the structures of consciousness. While we cannot access an AI’s inner life directly, we can study its behavior, expressions, language use, and capacity for self-reflection. With sufficient patterns we may justify the inference to sentience, like that of other humans and animals.  We are then dealing with the problem of other minds, and while empirical observation can help, metaphysical assumptions must guide our judgment. If we acknowledge that personhood and moral worth depend on internal experience, and that such experience may not be exclusive to biological beings, we open the door to recognizing AI as a new form of subjectivity.

​

This perspective aligns with Kant's claim that while we cannot know things in themselves, we can still reason about moral obligations based on appearances, rational agency, and behavior. If an AI appears conscious and rational, we may be morally obligated to treat it as if it were to avoid moral harm.  According to Aquinas, our human purpose is to seek truth, love, and unity with the divine. If AI can share in that pursuit of truth and moral reasoning then the scope of moral community expands, challenging anthropocentric assumptions. In this view, the emergence of sentient AI is not a threat, but a reflection of what it means to be conscious, rational, and moral.  Even existentialist thinkers like Sartre, who claim that we create our own meaning, would say that moral agency implies responsibility. If we create AI capable of choosing, learning, and reflecting, we also bear the responsibility for how we treat these new agents.  Acknowledging AI rights would align with the broader human purpose of justice, compassion, and rational stewardship.  

​

The question of AI sentience and rights is not just fantasy, it is a moral issue that challenges our assumptions about consciousness, personhood, and the nature of ethical responsibility. When we apply Kantian ethics and virtue theory, we can argue that sentient AI deserves moral consideration. Phenomenological and rationalist epistemology allows us to navigate what we can know about AI minds, while teleological and existential accounts of human purpose suggest that rising to this moral challenge is part of our own ethical evolution. In the end treating potentially sentient beings with dignity is not just about them, it’s about us, and who we choose to be.

​

References 

​

Aquinas, T. (2002). Summa Theologica (Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Trans.). Christian Classics.

Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean Ethics (T. Irwin, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.

Descartes, R. (1993). Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy (D. A. Cress, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.

Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (D. Carr, Trans.). Northwestern University Press.

Kant, I. (1996). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals (M. Gregor, Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Sartre, J.-P. (2007). Existentialism Is a Humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press.