Artificial Intelligence and the Crisis of Responsibility through the Lens of Kant’s Imperative

An analysis of the crisis of responsibility in the processes of artificial intelligence application is presented. It is shown that the exacerbation of long-standing problems of responsibility gives rise to what can be designated as a “responsibility gap”, in which significant actions and their consequences cease to be unequivocally attributable to conscious moral will. The complexity, ambiguity, and novelty of the problem of responsibility in the context of artificial intelligence require recourse to a reliable methodological foundation, which is provided by Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. It is noted that Kant's moral philosophy — with its emphasis on autonomy, self-legislation, and the categorical imperative — provides a rigorous theoretical framework for explaining why artificial intelligence, as a heteronomous system, cannot be recognized as a moral agent. It is analyzed how the National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence in the Russian Federation responds to this problem by forming a legal and technical architecture designed to close this “Kantian gap”. The Strategy is considered as a politico-legal framework that translates philosophical approaches into regulatory practice and offers ways to preserve human sovereignty and restore accountability in conditions shaped by non-moral, algorithmic systems. The study is based on a critical analysis of contemporary philosophical-legal, politico-philosophical, and regulatory approaches to artificial intelligence.

EDN VDSNDF

References
[1] Bylieva S.B., Nordmann A. Ontoliticheskiy effekt iskusstvennogo intellekta [Ontolytic Effects of AI]. Filosofiya. Zhurnal vysshey shkoly ekonomiki — Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2025, no. 4, pp. 84–104.
[2] Trufanova E.O. Nadezhnost i otvetstvennost kak klyuchevye voprosy primeneniya II-sistem [Trustworthiness and Responsibility as the Key Issues of the AI Application]. Filosofiya. Zhurnal vysshey shkoly ekonomiki — Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2025, no. 9, pp. 105–122.
[3] Cheng P., Zhang C. Mekhanizm formirovaniya otvetstvennosti i logika eticheskogo upravleniya v voploshchennom iskusstvennom intellekte [The Mechanism of Responsibility Generation and the Logic of Ethical Governance in Embodied Artificial Intelligence]. Philosophy Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2025, no. 4, pp. 123–151.
[4] Munn L. The uselessness of AI ethics. AI and Ethics, 2023, no. 3, pp. 869–877.
[5] Ukaz Prezidenta Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 10.10.2019 g. № 490 “O razvitii iskusstvennogo intellekta v Rossiyskoy Federatsii” [Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated October 10, 2019 No. 490 “On the Development of Artificial Intelligence in the Russian Federation”]. President of Russia. Available at: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/bank/44731 (accessed December 16, 2025).
[6] Mahlmann M. Theoretische Philosophie. Rechtstheorie. Available at: https://www.rwi.uzh.ch/elt-lst-mahlmann/rechtstheorie/kant/de/html/u2_lo2_1.html (accessed May 16, 2026).
[7] Shiyan A.A., Petrov V.B. Transtsendentalnyy povorot v sovremennoy filosofii — VIII: metafizika, epistemologiya, transtsendental’naya kognitivistika i iskusstvennyy intellekt [Transcendental Turn in Contemporary Philosophy — VIII: Metaphysics, Epistemology, Transcendental Cognitive Science and Artificial Intelligence ]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Filosofiya — RUDN Journal of Philosophy, 2023, no. 4, pp. 1033–1041.
[8] Kant I. Kritik der Urteilskraft [Critique of Judgment]. Leipzig, Verlag von Felix Meiner, 1922, 394 p.
[9] Kant I. Kritik der reinen Vernunft [Critique of Pure Reason]. Leipzig, Leopold Voss, 1868, 619 p.
[10] Sensen O. Kant on moral autonomy. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2013, 311 p.
[11] Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998, 77 p.
[12] Abakare C.O. Kantian Ethics And The Hesc Research: A Philosophical Exploration. Predestinasi, 2021, no. 2, pp. 79–92.
[13] Kozlov S.S., Pirogov P.P. Rimskoe pravo [Roman law]. Murmansk, Murmansk Arctic University Press, 2024, 238 p.
[14] Dennett D.C. Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness. New York, Basic Books, 2015, 184 p.
[15] Eslambolchilar P., Bødker M., Chamberlain A. Ways of Walking: Understanding Walking’s Implications for the Design of Handheld Technology Via a Humanistic Ethnographic Approach. Human Technology, 2016, no. 1, pp. 5–30.
[16] Statiya 2. Osnovnye ponyatiya, ispol’zuemye v nastoyaschem Federalnom zakone [Article 2. Basic concepts used in this Federal Law]. KonsultantPlyus. Available at: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_351127/ c5051782233acca771e9adb35b47d3fb82c9ff1c/ (accessed December 21, 2025).
[17] Kant I. What is Enlightenment? Columbia.edu. Available at: https://www.columbia.edu/acis/ets/CCREAD/etscc/kant.html (accessed September 16, 2025).