AI and Dharma: Crafting a New Ethical Framework

AI is neither savior nor destroyer. What will decide its course is a universal ethical compass.

When it comes to artificial intelligence, we often hear one phrase. “It will either save us or destroy us!”

But this polarity reflects not the truth itself, but a narrative that serves the market. This duality both glorifies and sanctifies technology while at the same time legitimizing it through fear.

In reality, the issue is different. AI is neither savior nor destroyer. What will decide its course is a universal ethical compass.

Is Technology Neutral?

The cliché that “Technology is neutral; it’s up to us to use it for good or bad” is also wrong. From the very first line of code, every technology embeds the intentions of its creators, cultural values, and market interests.

Looking at AI today, we see this clearly. Corporate profit-driven models leave behind massive carbon footprints through high energy consumption. Algorithms reproduce social biases, deepening inequalities. Governments use AI as a tool of surveillance and propaganda. Technology is not an innocent instrument—it is, on the contrary, a value-laden force.

An Ancient Ethical Compass: Dharma

At this point, an ancient teaching can offer us a different perspective. In the Indian tradition, Dharma is the principle that sustains the universe. It is the ethical compass that binds individual intention to social outcome. It also connects society to nature. Let us revisit its three core teachings from today’s vantage point:

• Every action has consequences (Karma): Algorithmic decisions—from hiring to lending, healthcare to security—affect millions of lives. Their outcomes are not only technical but also ethical and moral.
• Intention matters: A line of code is written by an engineer. The profit drive motivates an investor. The decision made by a leader is significant. These are not merely technical choices. They are actions with social consequences.
• Harmony is essential: Progress that violates nature, justice, or human dignity may seem like a success in the short term. Yet, this is accelerated destruction in the long run. If technological advancement disrupts ecological balance or amplifies ethical and moral problems, this is not progress—it is corruption and disharmony. Not only social order collapses, but universal harmony as well.

The Gap Between Knowledge and Action

In the Mahabharata epic, Duryodhana utters these words that express humanity’s oldest dilemma. He says, “I know what is good, but I have no wish to do it. I know what is bad, but I lack the will to avoid it.”

This is the gap between knowledge and action. And we see the same picture today.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence, we deny or ignore the climate crisis. We know AI reproduces bias. It leaves a carbon footprint and creates social risks. Yet we continue to invest at full speed without solving these problems. We know what is right but do not apply it. We know what is wrong but keep doing it anyway.

The Need for a Hybrid Approach

We still frame AI debates in the language of competition: “Will humans win, or machines?”

But this is the wrong question. What we need is to see humans and machines not as rivals but as co-evolving actors. Not competition, but hybrid coexistence.

As an ancient teaching, Dharma can guide the ethical compass we now need—albeit reinterpreted. Because today, between humans and nature, a new actor has entered: machines and algorithms.

What Should the New Ethical Framework Be?

At the foundation of this vision lies symbiotic intelligence, not human–machine rivalry. This is the intelligence of shared life, mutual harmony, and collective responsibility.

• Shared intelligence: AI is not a rival but a partner. We must see AI as a collaborator. When merged with human imagination and intuition, it creates a more inclusive form of intelligence. Not replacing the doctor but strengthening diagnosis. Not replacing the teacher but enriching teaching.
• Ethics of coexistence: The paradigm of “we command, it obeys” no longer holds. To accept AI as part of society and nature, we must embed speed and efficiency in decision-making. We must also incorporate ecological balance and justice. Real progress is not more power and greater speed, but fairer and more conscientious harmony and balance.
• Relational responsibility: An algorithm’s error is not only the programmer’s fault—it is the product of the entire network. Responsibility, so, must be distributed, becoming the shared obligation of corporations, regulators, users, and affected communities. Ethical oversight should not be top-down only, but pluralistic and transparent.

Conclusion: Power Without a Compass Brings a Dark Future

The “savior or destroyer” binary of AI keeps us away from the truth. The real issue is: by which values will we steer this power?

Post-humanist Dharma can offer us this compass. An ethical framework that reminds us of consequences, binds intention with responsibility, and considers the human–machine–nature triangle together.

AI will be one of the key game-changers of the future. But what that future looks like will depend entirely on which compass we choose to guide it.