The Ethical Examination of “Digital Immortality” — Balancing Technological Advancement and the Boundaries of Life and Death
The science fiction plot in the movie “The Wandering Earth 2,” where Tu Hengyu uploads his daughter Yaya’s consciousness to a digital world, is increasingly becoming a reality with the explosive development of artificial intelligence, neuroscience, and quantum computing. The author has found that on e-commerce platforms such as Taobao and Pinduoduo, there are numerous merchants offering “AI resurrection” products at low prices, mostly ranging from a few yuan to several tens of yuan. It can be anticipated that, with the profound transformation of lifestyles and the rapid advancement of AI technology, emotional communication between real people and “virtual intelligent beings” may evolve into a common form of future human interaction, rewriting the ways in which human society socializes. This core idea of achieving a form of “eternal life” for human consciousness in digital form redefines what it means to “exist” as a human being. The deceased’s appearance, expressions, consciousness, memories, and even personality, being resurrected in the virtual world to interact with the real world, is not only a technological challenge but also brings complex philosophical contradictions and ethical risks, as it fundamentally changes human perceptions of life and death.
Chinese and Western perceptions of life and death are rooted in distinct cultural traditions and ways of thinking. For instance, Laozi’s notion that “life and death are predestined, just as day and night alternate regularly, which is the way of nature,” Zhuangzi’s view that “life and death are simultaneous, like the alternation of day and night,” Confucius’ statement “If you do not know life, how can you know death,” Buddhism’s concept of “samsara and karmic retribution,” and Confucian ideas such as “perpetual change is the way of life” and “sacrificing oneself for righteousness” all emphasize a holistic view of life and death as part of the natural order. They encourage compliance with the natural way and belief in cause and effect, and advocate achieving immortality by “establishing virtue, merit, and words” for the collective good.
In contrast, Western philosophies such as Plato’s “prison of the soul,” Heidegger’s “being-toward-death,” Kant’s “the starry sky above and the moral law within,” and Aristotle’s belief that “the human soul, being rational, can continue to exist in some form after death” highlight the immortality of the rational subject after death. Their value orientation tends more towards individualism.
Under the traditional framework of understanding life and death that has existed for thousands of years, “AI resurrection” challenges human perceptions of the boundaries between life and death. Should “digital immortality” be ethically accepted? Is the “resurrected” human a genuine continuation of consciousness or a form of self-deception by the living? Do the living have the right to determine the “digital existence” of the deceased? These questions are breaking through the boundaries of computer ethics, philosophy, psychology, and other fields.
From the perspective of utilitarian ethics, “digital immortality” offers a universally beneficial solution. It provides psychological comfort to the living, alleviating the pain of longing and emotional trauma. It also serves as a compensatory outlet for unfulfilled communication, which is conducive to individual mental health and social harmony and stability. Additionally, it can generate economic benefits. However, an over-reliance by the living on virtual interactions with the deceased may lead to emotional illusions and induce psychological issues. The deceased would likely prefer that the living move on and lead their own lives, which is the true legacy they leave behind. “AI resurrection” should not become a form of spiritual opium, and machines cannot replace human love. We must be vigilant against the living becoming overly immersed in virtual interactions.
From the perspective of rights-based ethics, the creation of digital replicas using the living’s images, voices, or behavioral data raises questions about whether this aligns with the deceased’s true will. If done without prior consent, it essentially constitutes the commodification and use of the deceased’s personal characteristics, which is fundamentally ethically flawed. Even if the AI system only mimics external behavioral traits without involving the level of consciousness, it still potentially infringes upon the deceased’s rights to privacy and personality. These fundamental human rights have ethical value that transcends the duration of life and should not be entirely stripped away with the end of an individual’s life. Do unrelated individuals or family members have the right to determine the “digital existence” of the deceased? The current technological applications have yet to establish a convincing moral argument framework, and their legitimacy still faces serious ethical scrutiny. These issues are subtly distorting the public’s views on life and death and weakening society’s respect for the essence of life.
From the perspective of fairness ethics, the wisdom of historically prominent scientists and thinkers resurrected through “AI” can make high-quality knowledge accessible to the general public, effectively alleviating the problem of uneven distribution of educational resources and injecting new intellectual momentum into social development. However, the attraction of substantial funds and talent to this emerging field may lead to excessive resource concentration. Sectors crucial for social equity, such as basic education and public health, may face the risk of resource displacement. If there is a mismatch between technological development and the allocation of resources to meet people’s livelihood needs, it may further widen the social welfare gap between different groups. Additionally, if “digital immortality” reaches an extremely high level of technological proficiency in the future, its high-end services may only be available to high-income groups. Vulnerable groups may face payment barriers or have to trade privacy for access, which would deepen social stratification and reinforce systemic social inequality.
At the intersection of technology and humanity, the dialogue between the philosophy of life and death and AI ethics will ultimately return to an understanding of the essence of life. Algorithms may be able to simulate surface-level consciousness, but they can never replicate the unique warmth and brilliance of human nature.