Recentering Homo Ethicus in Singapore’s AI Ambitions: An Islamic Ethical Perspective

Centrality of Homo Economicus in AI Discourse

Much of the deliberation surrounding the advancements of AI by both corporations and state assumes a particular idea of the human person. The human person frequently appears as a worker whose productivity can be enhanced, a consumer whose preferences can be predicted, or a data subject whose traits can be extracted and translated into measurable patterns for commercial interests.³ At the centre of the discourse lies the figure of the homo economicus through which human worth is increasingly measured according to economic utility and adaptability to technological change. This is reflected in the language employed to describe AI, such as innovation, optimisation and workforce transformation. While these goals are not inherently problematic, the concern arises when they become the dominant lens through which the human person and technological progress are understood. To put it simply, greater efficiency does not necessarily translate into improved well-being. For example, an organisation may achieve substantially higher levels of productivity through AI adoption, while simultaneously contributing to “AI fatigue” or “AI brain fry” due to the rapid proliferation of new AI tools and mounting pressure to automate their work.⁴ Thus, the central question for Singapore’s AI ambitions is not only whether AI can produce more efficient workers, but more importantly, what conception of the human person is being built into these infrastructures. Are people reduced primarily to resources and data points, or understood as persons whose dignity and value exceed what can be quantified? Addressing this question requires moving beyond homo economicus towards a richer conception of the human person. It is here that Taha Abderrahmane’s trusteeship paradigm (al-i’timāniyyah) offers an alternative view of the human person as fundamentally an ethical being.⁵

From Homo Economicus to Homo Ethicus: The Three Anchors of al-i’timāniyyah

The trusteeship paradigm seeks to make ethics central to human thought and action, which accordingly challenges the separation of human activity and, in this regard, technological development from moral responsibility. The paradigm is grounded in three key anchors: shahada (testimony), amana (trust), and tazkiya (self-purification).⁶ Although a detailed examination of each principle lies beyond the scope of this article, together they offer a framework for rethinking technological progress beyond material interests.

Shahada refers to the original testimony made by human beings before God. It gives human life a moral direction by reminding people that their actions in this world are connected to a responsibility that precedes material life. The human person is therefore not entirely self-defining, but remains accountable to a higher source of meaning and value.

Amana presents human freedom, knowledge and power as trusts rather than possessions that may be used without restraint. This principle provides a strong critique of homo economicus in which Taha Abderrahmane argues that modern society has neglected the pact of trust by treating material accumulation as an end in itself. When the pursuit of individual gain is separated from ethical responsibility, it enables excessive consumption and erodes the values of care and reciprocity that enable communities to flourish. In this regard, technological activity should not be evaluated based on increased productivity or efficiency. Rather, their use must also be judged by whether it respects and strengthens the well-being of the cosmos.

Tazkiya refers to the enduring effort to cultivate and refine one’s character and conduct. For Taha Abderrahmane, this process is not only about self-control but also about moral growth through the divine names (al-asma al-husna). By orienting towards qualities such as mercy, justice and wisdom, human beings can be creative and innovative without losing their moral compass.⁷ In the context of AI, tazkiya suggests that innovation should not be driven only by what is technically possible or commercially attractive. It should also be guided by an ethic of restraint and critical reflection to ensure that technological progress is assessed not only by its utility and instrumentality but also by whether it protects human dignity and serves the common good.⁸

Together, these principles offer a view of the human being as homo ethicus: a person who is accountable, entrusted with responsibility, and capable of moral development. This provides the basis for recentring the human person in discussions of AI, not merely as an economic utility or data subject, but as a moral agent whose dignity and responsibilities should shape the direction of technological progress.

Recentering the Homo Ethicus

Against this backdrop, the article proposes four analytical questions, drawing on Taha Abderrahmane’s concept of al-i’timāniyyah as an analytical lens to guide thinking about the development of AI and to advance the argument about the significance of homo ethicus.

Does the use of AI strengthen or weaken human agency?

AI should augment human judgment rather than enable cognitive debt. This requires asking whether users are equipped not merely to use AI tools but also to understand and even reshape them in light of their local moral world.⁹ It also means considering whether users can exercise their freedom to question or opt out of particular AI advancements, but more importantly, whether they have a good understanding of how AI policies by corporations and institutions shape their everyday lives. Singapore’s strong emphasis on AI literacy reflects an awareness of this concern, but literacy alone does not guarantee that agency is preserved. It requires a robust ecosystem that cultivates the capacity to use technology critically, not merely competently.

Does it uphold the dignity and interests of those on the margins?

AI systems tend to privilege what is visible, measurable, and well represented in data.¹⁰ In doing so, they may present a narrow account of reality and overlook the experiences of those who are already marginalised. Some communities may lack meaningful access to AI tools, while others may be poorly represented in the data used to develop them. A homo ethicus approach must therefore ask why certain data or experiences are included and what responsibilities institutions have towards those who may be misrepresented or left behind.

Who is answerable when harm occurs?

In many cases of AI-related harm, responsibility is shifted onto users who are expected to make “better choices.” This can obscure institutions’ duty to rectify the conditions that enabled the harm and address weaknesses in the system. This runs contrary to the principle of amana deliberated earlier, which holds people behind the institutions accountable for the systems they create. AI may transform the decision-making process, but it does not remove the moral responsibility of those who authorise and act on that decision.

Does it contribute to shared human flourishing?

AI should be assessed not only by whether it maximises utility, but also by whether it helps people and communities live well together. This includes distributing benefits and burdens fairly, strengthening social trust, and supporting those who may otherwise be left behind. The question, then, is not simply whether AI creates value, but who benefits, who bears the costs, and whether it contributes to a society in which people can flourish together.

Charting an Ethical Future

Every national strategy is an act of imagination, a claim about which future and whose future is worth building towards. The role of ethics, then is to interrogate the assumptions, priorities, and values built into that future and to ask whose interests it serves, whose voices it includes, and whom it excludes. It also raises the fundamental question of who has the power to imagine the future and whose vision of progress becomes dominant.¹¹

This is particularly relevant, as discussions about AI are often framed in terms of inevitability and totality. For instance, AI will transform every sector of the workforce, businesses must adapt and workers must upskill to keep pace. While these concerns are real, such language can make people appear as passive recipients of a future already determined by corporations and states.

An Islamic ethical perspective, articulated through the notion of homo ethicus in this article, serves as a resource for charting an ethical future that views the human person not simply as a subject of technology but as a moral being capable of making responsible choices and shaping new possibilities. This does not require rejecting innovation or progress. Rather, it places them within a broader account of the purpose of human life centred on human dignity and flourishing. The challenge therefore is not simply to keep “humans in the loop," but to ensure that the human person and a plurality of human visions of an ethical future remain at the centre of Singapore's AI ambitions.