by Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad

The arrival of DeepSeek’s large language model sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley, signaling that—for the first time—a Chinese AI company might rival its American counterparts in technological sophistication. Some researchers even suggest that the loosening of AI regulation in the West is, in part, a response to the competitive pressure DeepSeek has created. One need not invoke Terminator-style doomsday scenarios to recognize how AI is already exacerbating real-world issues, such as racial profiling in facial recognition systems and exacerbating health inequities. While concerns about responsible AI development arise globally, the Western and Chinese approaches to AI governance diverge in subtle but significant ways. Comparative studies of Chinese and European AI guidelines have shown near-identical lists of ethical concerns—transparency, fairness, accountability—but scholars argue that these shared terms often mask philosophical differences. In the context of pluralistic ethics, Confucian ethics offers a valuable perspective by foregrounding relational responsibility, moral self-cultivation, and social harmony—complementing and enriching dominant individualistic and utilitarian frameworks in global AI ethics. In Geography of Thought Nisbett argues that moral reasoning is approached differently in Eastern societies, where context, relationships, and collective well-being are emphasized.

To illustrate such differences, consider fairness. In East Asian contexts may be interpreted relationally – focused on harmony and social roles rather than procedurally. This suggests that AI systems evaluated as “fair” in the Western context may be perceived as unjust or inappropriate in another cultural settings.  Similarly, privacy in the Western context is rooted in individual autonomy, rights, and personal boundaries. It could even be framed as a negative liberty i.e., the right to be left alone. Thus, Western approaches to privacy in AI (like GDPR) emphasize explicit consent, control over personal data, and transparency, often through individual-centric legal frameworks. In contrast, Confucian ethics views the self as relational and embedded in social roles—not as an isolated, autonomous unit. Privacy, therefore, is not an absolute right but a context-dependent value balanced with responsibilities to family, community, and social harmony. From a Confucian perspective, the ethical use of personal data might depend more on the intent, relational trust, and social benefit, rather than solely on individual consent or formal rights. If data use contributes to collective well-being or aligns with relational obligations, it may be seen as ethically acceptable—even in cases where Western frameworks would call it a privacy violation.

Consider elder care robots: a Confucian ethicist might ask whether such systems can genuinely reinforce familial bonds and facilitate emotionally meaningful interactions—such as encouraging virtual family visits or supporting the sharing of life stories. While Western ethical frameworks may also address these concerns, they often place greater emphasis on individual autonomy and the protection of privacy. In contrast, a Confucian approach would center on whether the AI fosters relational obligations and emotional reciprocity, thereby fulfilling moral duties that extend beyond the individual to the family and broader community. Read more »