Artificial Intelligence with Soul: A Humanistic Model for Ethical, Trustworthy and Well-Being-Oriented Digital Transformation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53485/ret.v5i3.795Keywords:
humanistic artificial intelligence, algorithmic ethics, AI governance, digital well-being, digital transformationAbstract
Objective: To formulate and substantiate the “Artificial Intelligence with Soul” model as a humanistic framework for governing, designing, adopting, and evaluating artificial intelligence systems in organizations and universities. Methodology: A theoretical-propositional study was conducted through an integrative review of literature on trustworthy artificial intelligence, algorithmic ethics, human-centered design, sociotechnical systems, digital well-being, data justice, explainability, human oversight, and risk management. International regulatory and technical frameworks were compared, including UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. Results: A multilevel model is proposed comprising six principles—legitimate purpose, dignity and rights, human agency, justice and inclusion, sociotechnical trustworthiness, and sustainable well-being—four governance layers—strategic, organizational, technical, and relational—and a 4A activation cycle: Learning, Attitude, Soul, and Action. The article contributes an assessment matrix, twelve testable propositions, an indicator dashboard, a preliminary 36-item scale, and an implementation roadmap. Conclusions: Responsible AI cannot be reduced to regulatory compliance or technical accuracy. It requires alignment among purpose, data, architecture, decisions, power relations, and human consequences. The model translates ethical principles into verifiable practices and offers a research agenda for validating its usefulness across sectors and cultural contexts.
References
Allan, B. A., Batz-Barbarich, C., Sterling, H. M., & Tay, L. (2019). Outcomes of meaningful work: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3), 500-528.
Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., et al. (2019). Guidelines for human-AI interaction. Proceedings of CHI 2019.
Barocas, S., Hardt, M., & Narayanan, A. (2023). Fairness and machine learning. fairmlbook.org.
Binns, R. (2018). Fairness in machine learning: Lessons from political philosophy. Proceedings of FAT*.
Buolamwini, J., & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender shades. Proceedings of FAT*.
Citron, D. K., & Pasquale, F. (2014). The scored society. Washington Law Review, 89, 1-33.
Crawford, K. (2021). Atlas of AI. Yale University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Dignum, V. (2019). Responsible artificial intelligence. Springer.
Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv.
Edmondson, A. C. (2019). The fearless organization. Wiley.
European Commission High-Level Expert Group on AI. (2019). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI.
European Parliament and Council. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence.
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford University Press.
Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In Human-computer interaction and management information systems.
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., et al. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86-92.
Green, B. (2022). The flaws of policies requiring human oversight of government algorithms. Computer Law & Security Review, 45.
Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics. Minds and Machines, 30, 99-120.
IEEE. (2019). Ethically aligned design. IEEE.
ISO/IEC. (2023). ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Information technology - Artificial intelligence - Management system.
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 389-399.
Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. (2020). Algorithms at work. Academy of Management Annals, 14(1), 366-410.
Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., et al. (2017). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 165, 633-705.
Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouzé, E., Pentland, A., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 611-627.
Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., et al. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of FAT*.
Mittelstadt, B. D. (2019). Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 501-507.
Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1.
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile. NIST AI 600-1.
Nissenbaum, H. (2010). Privacy in context. Stanford University Press.
Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of oppression. NYU Press.
OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence.
O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction. Crown.
Parasuraman, R., & Riley, V. (1997). Humans and automation. Human Factors, 39(2), 230-253.
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard University Press.
Pirson, M. (2017). Humanistic management. Cambridge University Press.
Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., et al. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap. Proceedings of FAT*.
Raji, I. D., & Buolamwini, J. (2019). Actionable auditing. Proceedings of AIES.
Ribeiro, M. T., Singh, S., & Guestrin, C. (2016). Why should I trust you? Proceedings of KDD.
Russell, S. (2019). Human compatible. Viking.
Sambasivan, N., Kapania, S., Highfill, H., et al. (2021). Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work. Proceedings of CHI.
Selbst, A. D., Boyd, D., Friedler, S. A., Venkatasubramanian, S., & Vertesi, J. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. Proceedings of FAT*.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Shneiderman, B. (2022). Human-centered AI. Oxford University Press.
Suresh, H., & Guttag, J. V. (2021). A framework for understanding sources of harm throughout the machine learning life cycle. Proceedings of EAAMO.
Taddeo, M., & Floridi, L. (2018). How AI can be a force for good. Science, 361(6404), 751-752.
Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? Big Data & Society, 4(2).
UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence.
UNESCO. (2023). Guidance for generative AI in education and research.
van de Poel, I. (2020). Embedding values in artificial intelligence systems. Minds and Machines, 30, 385-409.
Venkatasubramanian, S., & Alfano, M. (2020). The philosophical basis of algorithmic recourse. Proceedings of FAT*.
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2018). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841-887.
World Health Organization. (2021). Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright © 2026 Ignacio Bonasa Alzuria
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
