SavedAdd your journal

Journals / AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology / 2026 / Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2

Global Consensus in Artificial Intelligence Ethics and the Role of Cultural Differences

Yapay Zekâ Etiğinde Küresel Uzlaşı ve Kültürel Farklılıkların Rolü

Yüksel Şeyda Kaba(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TEKNOLOJİ FAKÜLTESİ)0009-0000-7995-8737
Hikmet Hakan Gürel(KOCAELİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, TEKNOLOJİ FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0002-6999-7166
Pages
227–244
Publication Date
2026-05-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate that approaches to artificial intelligence ethics are shaped by different priorities across regions and that core ethical principles such as privacy, justice, and transparency may be interpreted differently depending on the cultural value systems of societies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Despite the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies in recent years, a global consensus on the ethical use of these technologies has not yet been achieved.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of the study is to examine how cultural differences influence the formation of a global consensus in artificial intelligence ethics and to propose an approach that incorporates cultural diversity in the universalization of ethical principles.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate that approaches to artificial intelligence ethics are shaped by different priorities across regions and that core ethical principles such as privacy, justice, and transparency may be interpreted differently depending on the cultural value systems of societies.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Kültürel Farklar · Ortak Uzlaşı · Yapay Zekâ

Abstract

Despite the rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies in recent years, a global consensus on the ethical use of these technologies has not yet been achieved. Countries and institutions have established various regulations based on their own cultural values; however, these documents have failed to move beyond regional representation and have proven insufficient in establishing a global standard. This study presents a conceptual review based on academic literature and international policy documents in the field of artificial intelligence ethics. The aim of the study is to examine how cultural differences influence the formation of a global consensus in artificial intelligence ethics and to propose an approach that incorporates cultural diversity in the universalization of ethical principles. The findings indicate that approaches to artificial intelligence ethics are shaped by different priorities across regions and that core ethical principles such as privacy, justice, and transparency may be interpreted differently depending on the cultural value systems of societies. Finally, three key strategies are presented to strengthen ethical alignment: conducting ethnographic research, encouraging global participation, and emphasizing multilingual publications.

Özet

Yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin son yıllardaki hızlı gelişimine karşın, bu teknolojilerin etik kullanımına dair küresel bir uzlaşı henüz sağlanamamıştır. Ülkeler ve kurumlar kendi kültürel değerlerine göre çeşitli düzenlemeler oluşturmuş, ancak bu belgeler bölgesel temsilin ötesine geçememiş ve küresel bir standart oluşturmakta yetersiz kalmıştır. Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ etiği alanındaki akademik literatür ve uluslararası politika belgelerinden yararlanılarak oluşturulmuş bir kavramsal derleme çalışmasıdır. Çalışmanın amacı, yapay zekâ etiğinde kültürel farklılıkların küresel uzlaşıyı nasıl etkilediğini incelemek ve etik ilkelerin evrenselleştirilebilmesi için kültürel çeşitliliği kapsayıcı bir yaklaşım önermektir. Bulgular, yapay zekâ etiğine yönelik yaklaşımların bölgeler arasında farklı öncelikler etrafında şekillendiğini ve mahremiyet, adalet ve şeffaflık gibi temel etik ilkelerin toplumların kültürel değer sistemlerine bağlı olarak farklı biçimlerde yorumlanabildiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma sonunda, etik uyumun güçlendirilmesi amacıyla üç temel strateji sunulmaktadır: etnografik araştırmalar yürütmek, küresel katılımı teşvik etmek ve çok dilli yayınlara önem vermek.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kaba, Y. Ş., Gürel, H. H. (2026). Global Consensus in Artificial Intelligence Ethics and the Role of Cultural Differences. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, Cilt: 17 Sayı: 2, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.5824/ajite.2026.02.006.x

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (51)

  1. Aristotle. (350 BCE/2000). Aristotle: Nicomachean ethics. (R. Crisp, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Asimov, I. (1942). Runaround. Astounding Science Fiction, 29(1), 94–103.
  3. Atari, M., Xue, M. J., Park, P. S., Blasi, D. E., & Henrich, J. (2023). Which Humans? (No. 5b26t_v1). PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/5b26t
  4. Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The Moral Machine experiment. Nature, 563(7729), 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6
  5. Bayer, J. Р., Vasilyeva, V. A., & Vetrenko, I. A. (2020). The Social Credit System of the People’s Republic of China through the Eyes of Foreign Researchers. Administrative Consulting, 0(7), 20-31. https://doi.org/10.22394/1726-1139-2020-7-20-31
  6. Bentham, J. (1789/1988). The Principles of Morals and Legislation. Prometheus Books.
  7. Cabinet Office of Japan. (2016). Society 5.0. https://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/society5_0/index.html
  8. Cameron, J. (Director). (1984). The Terminator [Motion picture]. Orion Pictures.
  9. Čapek, K. (1920). R.U.R.: Rossum's Universal Robots. Aventinum.
  10. Chen, M., Engelmann, S., & Grossklags, J. (2023). Social Credit System and Privacy. Içinde S. Trepte & P. Masur, The Routledge Handbook of Privacy and Social Media. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003244677-26
  11. Confucius. (500 BCE/1979). The analects (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
  12. Cumhurbaşkanlığı Dijital Dönüşüm Ofisi. (2021). Ulusal Yapay Zekâ Stratejisi 2021–2025.
  13. Ess, C. (2013). East-West Perspectives on Privacy, Ethical Pluralism and Global Information Ethics. From Ontos Verlag: Publications of the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein Society - New Series (Volumes 1-18), 7(0). https://wab.uib.no/ojs/index.php/agora-ontos/article/view/2083
  14. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  15. Fung, P., & Etienne, H. (2021). Confucius, Cyberpunk and Mr. Science: Comparing AI ethics between China and the EU (arXiv:2111.07555). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2111.07555
  16. Gal, D. (2020). Perspectives and Approaches in AI Ethics: East Asia. İçinde M. D. Dubber, F. Pasquale, & S. Das (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Ethics of AI. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190067397.013.39
  17. Goffi, E. R. (2021). Escaping the Western Cosm-Ethical Hegemony: The Importance of Cultural Diversity in the Ethical Assessment of Artificial Intelligence. The AI Ethics Journal, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.47289/AIEJ20210716-1
  18. Hagerty, A., & Rubinov, I. (2019). Global AI Ethics: A Review of the Social Impacts and Ethical Implications of Artificial Intelligence (arXiv:1907.07892). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1907.07892
  19. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X
  20. Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. SAGE.
  21. Hua, J., & Wang, P. (2023). Cultural differences in privacy protection: A case study of DiDi privacy violations. Issues in Information Systems, 24(2), 304. https://doi.org/10.48009/2_iis_2023_127
  22. Jecker, N. S., & Nakazawa, E. (2022). Bridging East-West Differences in Ethics Guidance for AI and Robotics. AI, 3(3), 764-777. https://doi.org/10.3390/ai3030045
  23. Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019). The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(9), 389-399. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2
  24. Kagermann, H., Wahlster, W., & Helbig, J. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative Industrie 4.0. German National Academy of Science and Engineering.
  25. Kalaman, S., Kaya, E., & Kaya, Ü. (2018). Çin Halk Cumhuriyeti’nde Yeni Medya Uygulamaları: Nitel Bir Araştırma. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 9(32), 101-122. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2018.2.007.x
  26. Kant, I. (1785/1993). Grounding for the metaphysics of morals (J. W. Ellington, Trans.). Hackett Publishing.
  27. King, S. B. (1991). Buddha nature. SUNY Press.
  28. Koç, O. (2025). Türkiye’nin Bilgi Bilim Alanında Yapay Zeka Araştırmaları: Web of Science İndeksli Yayınların Bibliyometrik Analizi (1994-2024). AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 16(3), 251-271. https://doi.org/10.5824/ajite.2025.03.004.x
  29. Kostka, G. (2019). China’s social credit systems and public opinion: Explaining high levels of approval. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1565-1593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819826402
  30. Kubrick, S. (Director). (1968). 2001: A Space Odyssey [Motion Picture]. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.
  31. Kulothungan, V., & Gupta, D. (2025, May). Towards adaptive AI governance: Comparative insights from the US, EU, and Asia. In 2025 IEEE 11th Conference on Big Data Security on Cloud (BigDataSecurity) (pp. 32-38). IEEE.
  32. Küçüksolak, Ö. K., & Fırat, T. (2023). The Geopolitics of Artificial Intelligence in Central Asia: Russian and Chinese Cases. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.1249381
  33. Lang, F. (Director). (1927). Metropolis [Motion picture]. Paramount Pictures.
  34. Laozi. (4th century BCE/2000). Tao te ching (D. C. Lau, Trans.). Penguin Classics.
  35. Liu, S. Y. (2020). Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Agriculture. IT Professional, 22(3), 14-15. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2020.2986121
  36. Mancilla-Caceres, J. F., & Estrada-Villalta, S. (2022). The Ethical Considerations of AI in Latin America. Digital Society, 1(2), 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-022-00018-y
  37. Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., Parli, V., Kariuki, N., Capstick, E., Reuel, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Etchemendy, J., Ligett, K., Lyons, T., Manyika, J., Niebles, J. C., Shoham, Y., Wald, R., Walsh, T., Hamrah, A., Santarlasci, L.,. Oak, S. (2025). The AI index 2025 annual report. Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.07139
  38. Mill, J. S. (1863/1998). Utilitarianism. Oxford University Press.
  39. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. (2022, November 17). Position paper of the People’s Republic of China on strengthening ethical governance of artificial intelligence (AI). Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China. https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zy/wjzc/202405/t20240531_11367525.html
  40. OECD.AI. (2025). OECD.AI Policy Navigator: National AI policy initiatives dashboard. Erişim tarihi: 15 Mart 2026, https://oecd.ai/en/dashboards/national
  41. Rashid, A. B., & Kausik, M. A. K. (2024). AI revolutionizing industries worldwide: A comprehensive overview of its diverse applications. Hybrid Advances, 7, 100277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hybadv.2024.100277
  42. Roche, C., Wall, P. J., & Lewis, D. (2023). Ethics and diversity in artificial intelligence policies, strategies and initiatives. AI and Ethics, 3(4), 1095-1115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00218-9
  43. Scott, R. (Director). (1982). Blade Runner [Motion picture]. Warner Bros.
  44. Shaheen, M. Y. (2021). Applications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare: A review. ScienceOpen Preprints. https://doi.org/10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-.PPVRY8K.v1
  45. State Council of the People’s Republic of China. (2014). Planning outline for the construction of a social credit system (2014–2020). http://www.gov.cn/
  46. Tezuka, O. (1952/2003). Astro Boy (Vol. 1). Dark Horse Comics.
  47. The Culture Factor Group. (t.y.). Country comparison tool. Erişim tarihi: 15 Mart 2026, https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool
  48. Ünal, S., & Sezgin, A. A. (2021). Büyük Veri (Big Data)’nin Yapay Zekâ Uygulamalarında Toplumsal Sınıflandırmaya Yönelik Kaygılar. AJIT-e: Academic Journal of Information Technology, 12(44), 47-70. https://doi.org/10.5824/ajite.2021.01.004.x
  49. Williams, P. (2009). Mahayana Buddhism: The doctrinal foundations. Routledge.
  50. Woersdoerfer, M. (2023). AI Ethics and Ordoliberalism 2.0: Towards A “Digital Bill of Rights” (arXiv:2311.10742). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.10742
  51. Maslej, N., Fattorini, L., Perrault, R., Gil, Y., Parli, V., Kariuki, N., Capstick, E., Reuel, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Etchemendy, J., Ligett, K., Lyons, T., Manyika, J., Niebles, J. C., Shoham, Y., Wald, R., Walsh, T., Hamrah, A., Santarlasci, L.,. Oak, S. (2025). The AI index 2025 annual report. Institute for Human-Centered AI, Stanford University. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.07139