Rights should be reformed not rejected

(Daniel Estrada, Ethics@Newark, Human supremacy as posthuman risk. Journal of Sociotechnical Critique, 1(1), 1–40.

https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=sociotechnicalcritique)

AI ethicists who are sympathetic to the critique of human supremacy developed in this paper may find themselves facing a dilemma similar to the one Khader describes in the transnational feminist discourse. Like missionary feminism, human supremacy continues and expands a Western imperialist ideology that some ethicists will be hesitant to endorse. However, abandoning humanist ideals may seem to leave us in a moral vacuum, without conceptual guidance for protecting the interests of persons and communities under genuine threat of systemic oppression. This concern might simply reflect a parochial Western bias; as mentioned earlier, many indigenous or non-Western perspectives operate on nonanthropocentric ethical frameworks. Nevertheless, as a practical matter, the international law and policy framework of human rights is not just abstract, ideal theory; it is also an established institutional reality, one which can mobilize material resources and direct international cooperation in the service of real human interests. This is not to say the framework of human rights achieves every ideal it aspires to, but simply that it is an important and useful tool in the toolbox, one which would work better if it were applied more consistently and inclusively, rather than if it were whittled down or eliminated, at least absent better options on the table. If the critique of human supremacy developed in this paper implies that the framework of human rights is an imperialist project, some AI ethicists may be tempted to bite the bullet and admit their preference for an imperialist ethical regime.