مطالب

The present article examines the possibility of attributing personhood to artificial intelligence agents, a concept central to determining moral status. The debate on personhood has long been central in applied ethics, particularly in discussions on abortion, where philosophers such as Mary Anne Warren proposed five criteria—consciousness, reasoning, self-motivated activity, capacity for communication, and self-awareness—as key indicators of personhood. The present study applies these criteria to artificial intelligence systems and asks whether their cognitive and functional capacities are sufficient for moral consideration. While certain features such as memory, goal-directed behavior, and limited moral interaction are identifiable in some AI systems, the absence of self-awareness and subjective experience remains a fundamental obstacle to full personhood. The article further engages with the views of Kant, Locke, DeGrazia, and Searle, assessing the possibility of AI’s moral standing—whether direct or indirect—through ethical frameworks such as deontology and virtue ethics. It concludes that although attributing personhood to AI remains highly problematic in its current state, addressing this issue is an urgent necessity for contemporary moral philosophy.

Objective : This study examines how different research and development (R&D) funding sources—business enterprise R&D (BERD), higher education R&D (HERD), and government-financed R&D (GOVERD)—influence national innovation and competitiveness, measured by the Global Innovation Index (GII) and Global Competitiveness Index (GCI). This study addresses a critical gap by moving beyond aggregate R&D spending to examine how funding composition shapes innovation capacity.  Methodology: Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analysis was conducted on a sample of 47 countries using data from OECD R&D Statistics, World Bank Development Indicators, and GII/GCI reports. Missing values (< 3%) were imputed using mean substitution. Diagnostic tests were applied to verify normality, minimal multicollinearity, and compliance with heteroscedasticity assumptions. Two models were subsequently estimated with GII and GCI as dependent variables. Results : For the GII model (R² = 0.601, F = 12.37, p < 0.001), overall GERD intensity was significantly positive (β = 10.54, p = 0.040), while disaggregated components (BERD, HERD, GOVERD) showed no individual significance due to multicollinearity. GDP per capita was robust (β = 8.78e-05, p = 0.019). For the GCI model (R² = 0.651, F = 15.31, p < 0.001), GERD was non-significant; GDP per capita remained the strongest predictor (β = 0.0003, p < 0.001). Regression assumptions were satisfied (Jarque-Bera p > 0.44; Durbin-Watson ≈ 2.1). Conclusion : Overall R&D intensity significantly influences innovation, but relationships with disaggregated sources are complex. The importance of GDP per capita shows that the quality of institutions and the ability to absorb new ideas are both important for turning R&D spending into innovation and competitiveness benefits. Policymakers should prioritize both R&D funding levels and the institutional environment enabling effective R&D utilization.

Objective: To critically examine the control-oriented trajectory within social psychology—characterized by covert influence, behavioral nudging, and digital dark patterns—and propose “Collective Psychology” as an ethical, liberatory corrective that re-centers democratic agency. Methods: A theoretical-critical inquiry was conducted through narrative review and conceptual analysis of peer-reviewed literature, books, and policy reports from 1960 to 2025. Thematic extraction and contrastive mapping were used to synthesize dominant influence paradigms with critical, liberation, and decolonial psychological traditions. Results: The synthesized framework comprises five interdependent principles: radical transparency, collective agency, structural healing, participatory praxis, and plural solidarity. Two irreducible paradigmatic contrasts emerged: shifting power from domination to collective capacity, and replacing covert manipulation with critical consciousness and influence literacy. These contrasts redefine psychological intervention from individual behavior modification to structural transformation and co-produced knowledge. Conclusion: Collective Psychology offers a coherent, principle-driven corrective that redirects psychological praxis away from technocratic control toward transparent, democratic solidarity. The framework provides actionable pathways for health policy, civic engagement, participatory research, and curriculum reform, demonstrating strong potential for culturally grounded adaptation.