Your browser does not fully support modern features. Please upgrade for a smoother experience.
Aristotle and AI in Education: Virtue, Wisdom, Human Flourishing and the Common Good: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Jade Zhou and Version 1 by Vassilios Makrakis.

This entry focuses on an Aristotelian approach to contemporary discourses about the implications of Artificial Intelligence (AI) regarding what it teaches and learns, with special regard to virtue or arete, practical wisdom or phronesis, and human flourishing or eudaimonia. Even though AI technologies provide new options for personalized learning, adaptive assessment, and data-driven instruction, their increasing entrenchment in the education ecosystem raises fundamental philosophical questions about the essence of teaching and learning, and about how we become better people. Aristotle’s distinction between intellectual and moral virtues can help us determine whether AI meaningfully contributes to the cultivation of good judgment, ethical character, and responsible agency. While AI is not completely antithetical to virtue formation, its knowledge and skill acquisition cannot replace the social, experiential, and habituated processes through which virtues are grown. AI should be designed and deployed as a “technological partner” to support (not replace) the teacher’s moral and pedagogical role. Guided by Aristotle’s view of eudaimonia and the common good, this analysis suggests that education should be structured to promote human flourishing in the age of AI, ensuring that learners develop their capacities for ethical reasoning, autonomy, and co-responsible participation to build a more sustainable and just society.

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Aristotle
  • education
  • virtues
  • wisdom
  • human flourishing
  • common good
  • AI ethics
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has evolved from a marginal technological curiosity in the 1970s into a transformative force shaping contemporary society and education. In educational contexts, AI applications now support adaptive learning, automate assessments, enable predictive analytics, and, through generative tools such as ChatGPT 5.5, assist in writing, problem-solving, and knowledge construction [1,2,3,4,5][1][2][3][4][5]. While these developments offer significant opportunities for enhancing learning processes, they also raise important ethical, pedagogical, and societal questions.
Recent scholarship highlights concerns that AI-driven optimization may privilege efficiency, scalability, and market-oriented solutions over educational values and contextual needs [6,7][6][7]. At the same time, limitations in current ethical frameworks—including deontological, utilitarian, and principle-based approaches—have exposed challenges in translating ethical guidelines into practice [8]. Additional concerns relate to the quality of AI-generated content, widening inequalities in access, and the potential erosion of established pedagogical and assessment practices [9,10][9][10].
In response, increasing attention has been given to AI literacy, emphasizing not only technical understanding but also socio-ethical awareness and critical engagement with AI systems [11,12,13,14][11][12][13][14]. However, the integration of AI into education raises deeper questions concerning human agency, instrumental rationality, knowledge, ethics, and power in digitally mediated environments [15,16,17][15][16][17]. In this era of data domination, instrumental rationality has become embedded in AI systems, operationalized through the dynamics of platform infrastructures, and experienced within digital public spheres as a distortion of communicative rationality [18].
To address these challenges, this entry draws on Aristotelian philosophy [19], which offers a robust ethical and educational framework. Aristotle distinguishes between technē (technical skill or instrumental capability), phronesis (practical wisdom or ethical judgment), and eudaimonia (human flourishing or the ultimate goal of a fulfilled life). Within this framework, education is not limited to the acquisition of knowledge and skills but is fundamentally concerned with the cultivation of character, ethical reasoning, and the common good.
This perspective is particularly relevant in the context of AI. While AI systems can support the development of intellectual virtues—such as knowledge (epistēmē) and technical competence (technē)—they cannot replace the human capacity for moral judgment and practical wisdom (phronesis). The increasing emphasis on data-driven performance, efficiency, and measurable outcomes risks narrowing the aims of education, reducing it to what can be quantified and optimized [20,21,22,23,24][20][21][22][23][24]. Such developments contrast with the Aristotelian view of education as a lifelong process oriented toward the development of virtuous individuals and flourishing communities.
Central to this discussion is the concept of the common good (koinon agathon), which, in Aristotelian terms, extends beyond utilitarian calculations of efficiency or aggregate welfare. It encompasses civic participation, ethical responsibility, and democratic engagement. In this sense, AI should be understood as a means rather than an end, requiring human oversight and ethical governance to ensure alignment with societal values and educational purposes [25,26,27,28][25][26][27][28].
Accordingly, the integration of AI into education must be guided by pedagogical and ethical considerations that preserve teacher agency, meaningful learning, and critical reflection. While AI can enhance learning environments and expand access to knowledge, its use must be carefully mediated to avoid reducing education to instrumental rationality and performance metrics [29,30,31,32][29][30][31][32].
Building on this perspective, Table 1 summarizes the key points involved in addressing AI in education through an Aristotelian lens, identifying areas of alignment and tension, and proposing a normative framework for positioning AI as a technological partner that supports, rather than replaces, human judgment and the pursuit of human flourishing (eudaimonia).
Table 1. AI and Aristotelian virtue ethics: alignment, tensions, and proper positioning.
Analytical Dimension Key Claim Aristotelian Interpretation Implications for AI in Education
Where AI Aligns with Aristotelian values Supporting teaching and learning processes AI supports the development of intellectual virtues (e.g., epistēmē, technē, and sophia). AI can enhance teaching and learning when focused on cognitive and epistemic development.
  Personalized learning pathways Individualized instruction supports knowledge construction and connects to prior learning. AI can deepen understanding and reduce learning barriers, especially in diverse classrooms.
  Competence-based development AI supports technē through practice, feedback, and simulation. AI is well-suited for developing applied and procedural competencies.
Where AI Conflicts with Aristotelian values Inability to cultivate the moral virtues Moral virtues (hexeis) develop habituation, emotion, and lived experience. AI cannot support character formation or the development of ethical habits.
  Lack of embodiment and moral exemplarity Virtue requires lived practice and observation within communities. AI cannot model or embody ethical behavior.
  Absence of practical wisdom (phronesis) Ethical judgment requires context-sensitive reasoning and responsibility. AI can inform decisions, but cannot replace human judgment.
  Inability to be part of ethical communities Ethics is inherently social and civic. AI cannot engage in any relational or communal moral life.
AI as a “Technological Partner” AI as an instrumental tool (technē) AI is a means, not an end, and lacks an intrinsic ethical purpose. AI should support, not determine, teaching and learning processes.
  Not a moral agent Moral agency requires intention, accountability, and character. Ethically, accountability remains with educators and institutions.
  Not a substitute for teachers Teaching involves care, judgment, and moral formation. Teacher agency remains central in AI-supported education.
  Not a source of ethical norms Ethical norms arise from human deliberation and the common good. AI outputs must be critically interpreted, not treated as authoritative.
To sum up, generative AI tools such as ChatGPT can serve as cognitive mediators, supporting analysis, argumentation, and reflection. However, their widespread and uncritical use raises concerns about algorithmic dependence, reduced cognitive engagement, and the growing influence of socio-technical power structures that shape educational practices [4,16,33,34][4][16][33][34].
Against this backdrop, this entry examines AI in education through an Aristotelian ethical perspective. It explores the tension between AI’s potential to enhance intellectual development and the risks of it undermining human agency and critical judgment. Drawing on virtue ethics and the concept of the common good, the analysis clarifies how AI can be positioned as a technē—an instrumental capability—while preserving practical wisdom (phronesis), teacher agency, and ethical responsibility.
The aim is to articulate a human-centered framework for AI in education in which technological innovation is aligned with the broader educational purpose of human flourishing (eudaimonia) and the common good, rather than being driven solely by efficiency or control.

References

  1. Torbjørn, N.; von Dzengelevski, O.; Tesch, K.; Kwasnitschka, D. Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videos: An experimental study on learning effects. Comput. Educ. 2025, 224, 105164.
  2. Chiasson, R.M.; Goodboy, A.K.; Vendemia, M.A.; Beer, N.; Meisz, G.C.; Cooper, L.; Schrout, J. Does the human professor or artificial intelligence (AI) offer better explanations to students? Evidence from three within-subject experiments. Commun. Educ. 2024, 73, 343–370.
  3. Sok, S.; Heng, K. ChatGPT for education and research: A review of benefits and risks. Cambodian J. Educ. Res. 2023, 3, 110–121.
  4. Vasconcelos, M.A.R.; dos Santos, R.P. Enhancing STEM learning with ChatGPT and Bing Chat as objects to think with: A case study. arXiv 2023, arXiv:2303.12713.
  5. Holmes, W.; Bialik, M.; Fadel, C. Artificial Intelligence in Education Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning; Center for Curriculum Redesign: Boston, MA, USA, 2019.
  6. Monnett, D.; Grigorescu, B. Deconstructing the AI myth: Fallacies and harms of algorithmification. Eur. Conf. E-Learn. 2024, 23, 242–248.
  7. Pfotenhauer, S.; Laurent, B.; Papageorgiou, K.; Stilgoe, J. The politics of scaling. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2022, 52, 3–34.
  8. Hayes, P.; Fitzpatrick, N.; Ferrández, J. From applied ethics and ethical principles to virtue and narrative in AI practices. AI Ethics 2025, 5, 1217–1239.
  9. Huang, Q.; Lv, C.; Lu, L.; Tu, S. Evaluating the quality of AI-generated digital educational resources for university teaching and learning. Systems 2025, 13, 174.
  10. Perkins, M.; Roe, J. The end of assessment as we know it: GenAI, inequality and the future of knowing 76–80. In AI in Education: Promises and Implications for Teaching and Learning; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2025; pp. 65–75.
  11. OECD. Empowering Learners for the Age of AI: An AI Literacy Framework for Primary and Secondary Education (Review Draft); OECD: Paris, France, 2025.
  12. Stolpe, K.; Hallström, J. Artificial intelligence literacy for technology education. Comput. Educ. Open 2024, 6, 100159.
  13. Casal-Otero, L.; Catala, A.; Fernández-Morante, C.; Taboada, M.; Cebreiro, B.; Barro, S. AI Literacy in K-12: A systematic literature review. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2023, 10, 29.
  14. UNESCO. Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2022; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137 (accessed on 10 March 2026).
  15. Javaid, M.; Haleem, A.; Singh, R.; Khan, S.; Khan, H. Unlocking the opportunities through ChatGPT tool towards ameliorating the education system. BenchCouncil Trans. Benchmarks Stand. Eval. 2023, 3, 100115.
  16. Selwyn, N. Should Robots Replace Teachers? AI and the Future of Education; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020.
  17. Holmes, W. Generative AI in Education: Emerging Risks and Recommendations; Policy Brief; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2023.
  18. Ningrum, D.; Winarno, A.; Subagyo, S. Instrumental rationality in the age of Artificial Intelligence: Re-reading Horkheimer and Habermas in the constellation of data capitalism. East Asian J. Multidiscip. Res. 2025, 4, 5873–5890.
  19. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics; Ross, W.D.; Brown, L., Translators; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 2009.
  20. Makrakis, V. Unlocking the potentiality and actuality of ICTs in developing sustainable justice curricula and society. Knowl. Cult. 2017, 5, 103–122.
  21. Makrakis, V.; Biasutti, M.; Kostoulas-Makrakis, N.; Ghazali, M.; Othman, W.; Ali, M.; Fitriyanto, N.A.; Mavrantonaki, K. ICT-enabled education for sustainability justice in South East Asian universities. Sustainability 2024, 16, 4049.
  22. Biesta, G. Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
  23. Coeckelbergh, M. Artificial intelligence, the common good, and the democratic deficit in AI governance. AI Ethics 2025, 5, 1491–1497.
  24. Berendt, B. AI for the common good?! Pitfalls, challenges, and ethics of pen-testing. Paladyn. J. Behav. Rob. 2019, 10, 44–65.
  25. Coeckelbergh, M. The Political Philosophy of AI; Polity: Cambridge, UK, 2022.
  26. Nemitz, P.; Pfeffer, M. The Human Imperative: Power, Freedom and Democracy in the Age of Artificial Intelligence; Ethics International Press Ltd.: London, UK, 2023.
  27. Makrakis, V. Teachers’ resilience scale for sustainability enabled by ICT/Metaverse learning technologies: Factorial structure, reliability, and validation. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7679.
  28. Hagendorff, T. A Virtue-based framework to support putting AI ethics into practice. Philos. Technol. 2022, 35, 55.
  29. Sieber, R.; Brandusescu, A.; Sangiambut, S.; Adu-Daako, A. What is civic participation in artificial intelligence? Environ. Plan. B Urban Anal. City Sci. 2025, 52, 1388–1406.
  30. Blau, A. Defending instrumental rationality against critical theorists. Political Res. Q. 2021, 74, 1067–1080.
  31. Yavich, R. Will the use of AI undermine students’ independent thinking? Educ. Sci. 2025, 15, 669.
  32. Akgun, S.; Greenhow, C. Artificial Intelligence in education: Addressing ethical challenges in K-12 settings. AI Ethics 2022, 2, 431–440.
  33. Verdegem, P. AI for Everyone? Critical Perspectives; University of Westminster Press: London, UK, 2021.
  34. Perrotta, C.; Selwyn, N. Deep learning goes to school: Toward a relational understanding of AI in education. Learn. Media Technol. 2019, 45, 251–269.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Academic Video Service
Feedback

Quick Survey

Encyclopedia MDPI is conducting a targeted survey to identify the specific barriers hindering efficient research. We invite you to spend 3 minutes defining the priorities for our next generation of structured knowledge tools.
Take Survey