Scholarlink

<p>This paper introduces Algorithmic Phronesis, a theoretical framework integrating Heideggerian ontology and virtue jurisprudence to evaluate the ethical and existential impact of AI on judicial decision-making. We argue that analyzing AI requires moving beyond technical or psychological accounts to understand the <i>existential</i> challenges technology poses to judicial virtue (<i>phronesis</i>). We propose a 2 × 2 matrix categorizing judges’ interactions with AI according to two ontologically grounded dimensions: Authenticity (the existential axis, concerning resolute ownership against the leveling pressure of <i>das Man</i>) and Interpretative Openness (the hermeneutic axis, concerning <i>Gelassenheit</i> resisting technological enframing, or <i>Gestell</i>). This yields four modes: Authentic Dialogical Judgment (ideal integration), Technological Pseudo-Openness (superficial engagement masking inauthenticity), Authentic Rule-Bound Deliberation (consistent yet rigid), and Algorithmic Formalism (automation without virtue). The framework suggests that authentic, dialogical use of AI enhances judicial wisdom and legitimacy, whereas superficial or closed engagement undermines the ontological conditions necessary for virtuous judgment, eroding fairness, accountability, and public trust. We offer philosophical insights into “meaningful human control” and practical guidance for ethically integrating AI into judicial processes.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Algorithmic phronesis: Heideggerian insights on AI and judicial virtue

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月2日

查看全文
  • Abdullah Muhammad Dhrubo

摘要

This paper introduces Algorithmic Phronesis, a theoretical framework integrating Heideggerian ontology and virtue jurisprudence to evaluate the ethical and existential impact of AI on judicial decision-making. We argue that analyzing AI requires moving beyond technical or psychological accounts to understand the existential challenges technology poses to judicial virtue (phronesis). We propose a 2 × 2 matrix categorizing judges’ interactions with AI according to two ontologically grounded dimensions: Authenticity (the existential axis, concerning resolute ownership against the leveling pressure of das Man) and Interpretative Openness (the hermeneutic axis, concerning Gelassenheit resisting technological enframing, or Gestell). This yields four modes: Authentic Dialogical Judgment (ideal integration), Technological Pseudo-Openness (superficial engagement masking inauthenticity), Authentic Rule-Bound Deliberation (consistent yet rigid), and Algorithmic Formalism (automation without virtue). The framework suggests that authentic, dialogical use of AI enhances judicial wisdom and legitimacy, whereas superficial or closed engagement undermines the ontological conditions necessary for virtuous judgment, eroding fairness, accountability, and public trust. We offer philosophical insights into “meaningful human control” and practical guidance for ethically integrating AI into judicial processes.