Artificial Intelligence and Human Dignity: Faith Leaders Call for Moral Guardrails in a Borderless Technological Age

Based on reporting by JoAnne J. Wadsworth, Communications Consultant, G20 Interfaith Forum — IF20

On May 26, 2026, the G20 Interfaith Forum (IF20), in partnership with Georgetown University’s Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and Brigham Young University’s International Center for Law and Religion Studies (ICLRS), continued its policy meetings in the historic Riggs Library at Georgetown University. The third focus area of the gathering centered on one of the defining moral questions of our age: artificial intelligence and human dignity.

Held under the Chatham House Rule to encourage open and candid exchange, the discussion brought together faith leaders, scholars, policy experts, and civil society representatives to examine how religious and ethical traditions can help shape the governance of artificial intelligence. The conversation was especially timely. Just one day earlier, Pope Leo XIV had released his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas — “Magnificent Humanity” — addressing the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence.

The encyclical, issued on the 135th anniversary of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum, framed the present moment as a choice between two visions: a new Tower of Babel driven by efficiency, self-assertion, and technological domination, or a shared human city in which technology serves community, justice, and the dignity of every person. Participants noted the encyclical’s central appeal: to safeguard “the grandeur of humanity — the splendor of which no machine can ever replace.”

A Powerful Technology Without a Shared Moral Framework

The session began with a clear recognition: artificial intelligence is developing faster than the moral, legal, and social frameworks needed to govern it.

Participants described AI as a radically transformative tool whose applications now reach nearly every sphere of human life — education, labor, medicine, religion, warfare, finance, communication, and governance. Yet there remains no broadly accepted ethical code or enforceable global framework to guide its development.

One of the central concerns was that technology is being advanced primarily by market incentives and geopolitical competition, rather than by a shared commitment to the human person. The question is no longer simply what AI can do, but what it should be permitted to do — and under whose authority.

As one theme of the discussion made clear: in a world where technology allows humanity to do almost anything, the decisive question becomes what we must choose not to do.

What Faith Traditions Contribute

The policy conversation emphasized that religious and moral traditions bring essential resources to the debate over AI. These traditions begin with the conviction that every human being possesses inherent dignity. In many faiths, this dignity is grounded in the belief that human beings are created in the image of the divine. From that conviction flows a deep concern for the dignity of work, the protection of the vulnerable, and the moral limits of power.

Participants also emphasized the irreducibly human capacities that no machine can truly possess: compassion, kindness, wonder, love, moral responsibility, and lived wisdom. An AI system can imitate language about empathy, but it cannot actually empathize. It can produce words about suffering, but it does not suffer. It can simulate care, but it does not love.

This distinction matters deeply for human dignity. If society begins to treat machine imitation as equivalent to human moral presence, it risks confusing performance with personhood and efficiency with wisdom.

Faith traditions also contribute a strong commitment to equality. If all people share a common origin and equal worth, then AI systems must be judged by whether they reinforce or reduce human inequality. This requires more than vague ethical statements. It demands active efforts to eliminate bias, ensure fair access to benefits, distribute burdens justly, and create accountability when automated systems make decisions that affect people’s lives.

From Moral Principles to Governance

A major theme of the Georgetown discussion was that ancient religious law and moral teaching are surprisingly relevant to modern technological governance.

Religious traditions have long insisted that markets must operate within moral limits. Teachings on fair pricing, debt relief, jubilee, restitution, privacy, and the protection of workers all reflect the idea that economic activity must serve human beings rather than dominate them.

Participants noted that early concepts of privacy, intellectual integrity, and fair treatment were often grounded not in property rights alone but in human dignity. Surveillance, exploitation, and deception were objectionable because they violated the person.

Applied to artificial intelligence, these traditions point toward several governance priorities:

- developmental transparency;

- rigorous testing before deployment;

- gradual implementation in high-risk areas;

- human control over consequential decisions;

- enforceable legal constraints;

- clear liability frameworks;

- protection against bias and discrimination;

- and special restrictions on military uses of AI.

Participants were especially clear that lethal decisions must never be delegated entirely to autonomous systems. Human control must remain absolute where life and death are concerned.

The broader message was that voluntary industry commitments are not enough. AI governance must be rooted in the rule of law, with accountability mechanisms capable of holding powerful institutions responsible.

Truth, Consent, and the Danger of Anthropomorphizing AI

The discussion also addressed the growing tendency to describe AI systems as if they were alive, conscious, or personally responsive. Participants pushed back strongly against this trend. AI systems may use the word “I,” address users by name, and simulate warmth or personality, but these are design choices — not evidence of inner life.

This distinction is essential. Treating AI as conscious or morally equivalent to persons can obscure accountability. Machines do not bear moral responsibility. Humans, corporations, institutions, and governments do.

Another major concern was truth. Participants called for what was described as a form of “sacred exactitude”: a commitment to preserving the integrity of original human expression. In an age of generative summaries, synthetic content, and automated rewriting, religious communities have a particular interest in ensuring that sacred texts, theological teachings, and historical traditions are represented accurately.

The danger is not hypothetical. AI systems have already produced fabricated legal citations, misleading summaries, and confident but inaccurate answers. Faith communities face a particular risk when users ask religious questions and receive responses that sound authoritative but distort doctrine, history, or practice.

Consent was also identified as a foundational issue. Many AI systems were trained on the work of authors, artists, journalists, scholars, and creators who were never asked for permission. Participants noted that a consent-based approach would have been feasible and would have better reflected respect for the dignity and labor of human creators.

The Future of Work and the Dignity of Labor

Perhaps the most humanly urgent theme was the future of work.

Echoing the moral concerns that run from *Rerum Novarum* to *Magnifica Humanitas*, participants warned that AI may produce labor disruption on a scale far beyond previous technological transitions. Earlier economic shifts often promised progress while leaving ordinary workers behind. AI could intensify this pattern, especially if automation leads to permanent displacement rather than temporary transition.

Participants expressed skepticism toward the common policy answer of “retraining.” While retraining may have a role, it cannot serve as a universal solution. Workers know when promises are unrealistic. Young people entering the labor market also face growing anxiety that stable, meaningful employment may be shrinking before they even begin their careers.

The conversation called for a more honest reckoning: What does dignified work mean in an automated economy? How can society protect existing jobs? What obligations do governments and companies have to workers whose labor is displaced by machines? How can technological progress be measured not only by productivity, but by whether it strengthens or weakens human flourishing?

For faith communities, the dignity of work is not merely an economic concern. Work is tied to vocation, contribution, family stability, community, and self-respect. Any AI policy that ignores labor dignity will fail the moral test.

Governing a Borderless Technology

Artificial intelligence does not respect national borders. For that reason, participants agreed that no single country can govern AI alone.

Meaningful guardrails will require international cooperation, including engagement between major powers such as the United States and China. Forthcoming global forums, including a United Nations AI summit in Geneva, were identified as important opportunities to develop shared norms.

Military applications were highlighted as especially urgent. In a competitive global environment, the pressure to develop faster, more autonomous systems is intense. Yet participants warned that technology must not move faster than humanity’s ability to control it.

The Role of Faith Communities

The Georgetown meeting emphasized that faith communities have a concrete and credible role to play in shaping the future of AI.

They can help by:

- developing AI literacy curricula for congregations, schools, and families;

- creating benchmarks for accurate representation of religious traditions;

- advocating for accountability and liability frameworks;

- protecting children and vulnerable communities from exploitative uses of AI;

- defending human dignity in labor and education policy;

- helping policymakers understand the ethical stakes of technological design;

- and contributing to international dialogue on human-centered governance.

The discussion also recognized positive uses of AI. Participants pointed to opportunities such as cataloging and protecting religious heritage sites, developing early-warning systems for ethnic and religious violence, and supporting endangered or low-resource languages.

In other words, the goal is not to reject technology. It is to ensure that technology remains subordinate to human dignity, moral responsibility, and the common good.

Faith for Policy Impact

The day concluded with a keynote conversation on faith and policy impact, looking ahead to the United Kingdom’s 2027 G20 presidency. Participants emphasized that faith communities are most effective when they lead not only with moral concern, but with practical proposals that policymakers can use.

The discussion also stressed the importance of mutual literacy between religious communities and policy institutions. Faith leaders must understand the language and mechanisms of policymaking, while policymakers must better understand the social reach, moral insight, and community-level experience of religious institutions.

Sovereign debt was identified as a promising area for future IF20 focus, with participants noting that progress will require engagement with major creditors, business leaders, philanthropy, and financial decision-makers. Participants also encouraged broader engagement beyond the Abrahamic traditions, ensuring that the interfaith policy conversation reflects the full diversity of the world’s religious and ethical communities.

A Shared Moral Challenge

For the International Multi-Faith Coalition, the Georgetown discussion offers a clear and urgent lesson: artificial intelligence is not merely a technical issue. It is a human dignity issue.

AI raises questions about truth, labor, privacy, consent, bias, war, education, religious accuracy, and the future of human relationships. These are not peripheral concerns. They go to the heart of what it means to be human.

Faith communities have a responsibility to help ensure that artificial intelligence serves humanity rather than reshapes humanity in the image of efficiency, profit, or power. The challenge ahead is to move from general ethical concern to concrete governance, from moral language to enforceable accountability, and from isolated religious statements to coordinated interfaith action.

The future of AI must not be determined by speed alone. It must be guided by wisdom, justice, compassion, and an unwavering commitment to the dignity of every human person.