Tarakanta Sahoo,
Priyanka Priyadarshini,
- Professor and Head, Gandhi Institute of Excellent Technocrats, Ghangapatna , Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
- Assistant Professor, Gandhi Institute of Excellent Technocrats, Ghangapatna , Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Abstract
Technological progression is mostly considered as a tool of human evolution. In this digital era, however, quick novelty has revealed complex ethical gaps in the modelling and implement of technology. Technologies namely artificial intelligence, algorithmic systems, and digital surveillance progressively effect social life, economic activity, and political decision-making. While these technologies provide proficiency and progress, they also advance moral concerns connected to discretion, disparity, liability, and human dignity. The technique seriously observes the leading technology-run knowledge of development and queries its moral suitability. The work propounds a logical and normative method to reveal the impression of expertise with a human face. This perception underscores the requirement to normalise scientific advancement in global moral values. Combining human rights dissertation along with universal moral outlines, this very work claims that knowledge itself is not worthy, but is guided by communal conventions, power constructions, and human selections. The moment moral reflection is unnoticed, technology can strengthen inequality and fade distinct independence. In order to converge on ethics namely human pride, righteousness, transparency, independence, and sustainability, the work re-considered advancement as a morally directed course. It settles that decent values should be united with technological novelty. This combination is needed to certify that technology assists civilisation and cares comprehensive and justifiable growth.
Keywords: Ethics; Technology; Progress; Humanity; Justice; Sustainability
[This article belongs to International Journal of Behavioral Sciences ]
Tarakanta Sahoo, Priyanka Priyadarshini. Technology with a Human Face: Reimagining Progress through Universal Ethical Principles. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2026; 03(01):30-36.
Tarakanta Sahoo, Priyanka Priyadarshini. Technology with a Human Face: Reimagining Progress through Universal Ethical Principles. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2026; 03(01):30-36. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/ijbsc/article=2026/view=241444
References
1. Barocas S, Selbst AD. Big data’s disparate impact. Calif. L. Rev.. 2016;104(3):671-732
2. Beck U. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. sage; 1992 Sep 3:pp 1-8
3. Bostrom N, Yudkowsky E. The ethics of artificial intelligence. InArtificial intelligence safety and security 2018 Jul 27 (pp. 57-69). Chapman and Hall/CRC. DOI:10.1201/9781351251389-4
4. Creemers R. China’s Social Credit System: an evolving practice of control. Available at SSRN 3175792. 2018 May 9.
5. Dastin J. Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women. InEthics of data and analytics 2022 May 12 (pp. 296-299). Auerbach Publications.
6. Eubanks V. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor.
7. European Commission. Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. Brussels: European Commission; 2019.
8. Feenberg A. Technosystem: The Social Life of Reason. Harvard University Press; 2017.
9. Floridi L. The ethics of information. Oxford University Press (UK); 2013.
10. Floridi L, Cowls J, Beltrametti M, Chatila R, Chazerand P, Dignum V, Luetge C, Madelin R, Pagallo U, Rossi F, Schafer B. AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and machines. 2018 Dec;28(4):689-707.
11. Hobsbawm EJ. The age of revolution: 1789-1848. Weidenfeld & Nicolson [Internet]. 1962
12. How JP. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritising Human Well-Being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems–Version 2. IEEE Control Systems Magazine. 2017;38(3)1-292
13. Jobin A, Ienca M, Vayena E. The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature machine intelligence. 2019 Sep;1(9):389-99.
14. Jonas H. The imperative of responsibility: In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago press; 1984.
15. Mittelstadt B. Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI. Nature machine intelligence. 2019 Nov;1(11):501-507.
16. Moor JH. Why we need better ethics for emerging technologies. Ethics and information technology. 2005 Sep;7(3):111-119.
17. Noble SU. Algorithms of oppression: How search engines reinforce racism. InAlgorithms of oppression 2018 Feb 20. New York university press.
18. O’neil C. Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown; 2017 Sep 5: 78(3):403 DOI:10.5860/crl.78.3.403
19. Pasquale F. The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. InThe black box society 2015 Jan 5. Harvard University Press.
20. Rawls J. A theory of justice. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press; 1971.
21. Sen A. Rationality and freedom. Harvard University Press; 2002.
22. Ganbaatar U. Do Ethics in AI Still Matter? A Review of the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of AI. The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 2025 Jul 3;23(3):26-33.
23. United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paris: United Nations; 1948.
24. Van Wynsberghe A, Robbins S. Ethicists in the loop: using ethics to guide autonomous systems design. AI Soc. 2019;34(1):1–14.
25. Voigt P, Von dem Bussche A. The eu general data protection regulation (gdpr). A practical guide, 1st ed., Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2017 Aug 10;10(3152676):10-5555.
26. Winner L. Do artefacts have politics? Daedalus. 1980;109(1):121–136.
27. Zuboff S. The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. Journal of Information Ethics. 2024 Apr 1;33(1):84-5.
International Journal of Behavioral Sciences
| Volume | 03 |
| Issue | 01 |
| Received | 25/01/2026 |
| Accepted | 29/01/2026 |
| Published | 05/02/2026 |
| Publication Time | 11 Days |
Login
PlumX Metrics