When AI talks politics: a critical look at Deontology and Utilitarianism in the age of synthetic campaign content
Keywords:
artificial intelligence, media ethics, deontology, utilitarianism, political communicationAbstract
Until very recently, when someone wanted some fabricated political content that appeared authentic, they needed a professional production team. Nowadays, anyone owning a computer is capable of doing it in merely several minutes. Artificial Intelligence makes people able to generate fake speeches. Thereby, this technology enables the generation of fake videos together with customized campaign ads appearing to be true ones. This raises an important ethical question for media ethics. This paper compares two well-known ethical theories to find out their respective views on such topic. They are Immanuel Kant’s deontology claiming people are obliged by virtue itself to follow certain moral imperatives no matter what situation people find oneself in (Kant, 1785). Another one is Utilitarianism proposed by John Stuart Mill which evaluates any deed according whether outcomes make most people feel satisfied and happy (Mill, 1861/ 2002). The paper takes up one actual example from the elections happened in Malaysia in April 2024 to find out how the above two kinds of ethical doctrines deal with that issue in reality. Someone utilized AI technology to reproduce the voice of one candidate, so everyone thought that the one had completely abandoned rural voters. As shown by the paper, there are different results when adopting deontology versus utilitarianism respectively. According to deontology, the individual has acted wrongly in any event no doubt about it. But for the viewpoint held by utilitarianism, it seems most probably he got something wrong but perhaps his behavior would gain legitimacy under some other conditions. Neither of them seems fully convincing alone when judged individually. Therefore, the conclusion presented by the paper here is a compromise between the two extremes called here Hybrid Framework which sticks to deontological principles but still admits utilitarian exceptions in case things happen in really serious cases. Finally, the conclusion section will give guidance and advice on relevant issues raised before to everyone in different walks including ordinary people, content creators and policymakers.
References
Ab Rashid, F. H., & Ramlan, M. A. I. (2025). AI and the democratisation of storytelling: Is professional journalism at risk? Bulletin. Universiti Teknologi MARA, Negeri Sembilan.
Bennett, W. L. (2018). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Bok, S. (1978). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. Pantheon Books.
Carlson, M. (2020). Journalistic epistemology and digital news circulation. New Media & Society, 22(4), 692-710.
Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753-1820.
Christiano, T. (2008). The constitution of equality: Democratic authority and its limits. Oxford University Press.
Christians, C. G., Glasser, T. L., McQuail, D., Nordenstreng, K., & White, R. A. (2020). Normative theories of the media: Journalism in democratic societies (2nd ed.). University of Illinois Press.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Polity Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication and democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Fallis, D. (2021). The epistemic threat of deepfakes. Philosophy & Technology, 34(4), 623-643.
Harris, D. E., & Shull, A. (2025). Generative AI, democracy and human rights (Policy Brief No. 12). Centre for International Governance Innovation.
Kant, I. (1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (J. W. Ellington, Trans.). Hackett. (Original work published 1785)
Kant, I. (1978). On a supposed right to lie from benevolent motives. In T. K. Abbott (Trans.), Kant's critique of practical reason and other works on the theory of ethics (pp. 361-365). Longmans, Green. (Original work published 1799)
Lafollette, H. (2000). Pragmatic ethics. In B. Hooker & M. Little (Eds.), Moral particularism (pp. 234-257). Oxford University Press.
Mill, J. S. (2002). Utilitarianism. In M. Warnock (Ed.), Utilitarianism and On Liberty (2nd ed., pp. 85-140). Blackwell. (Original work published 1861)
Saurwein, F., & Spencer-Smith, C. (2020). Combating disinformation on social media: Multilevel governance and distributed accountability in Europe. Digital Journalism, 8(6), 820-841.
Scanlon, T. M. (1998). What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press.
Scheffler, S. (1982). The rejection of consequentialism. Oxford University Press.
Vaccari, C., & Chadwick, A. (2020). Deepfakes and disinformation: Exploring the impact of synthetic political video on deception, uncertainty, and trust in news. Social Media + Society, 6(1), 1-13.
Ward, S. J. A. (2021). Ethics and the media: An introduction (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism. PublicAffairs.
Published
Abstract Display: 0 
PDF Downloads: 0 Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a