The digital revolution challenges the conscience of contemporary humanity, and with the encyclical Magnifica humanitas, Leo XIV offers a spiritual and ethical compass for inhabiting the future without losing what makes us authentically human
Abstract: Pope Leo XIV’s first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, signed on 15 May 2026 and published on 25 May 2026, represents one of the first major documents of the pontifical magisterium entirely devoted to the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence. Standing in continuity with the Church’s social doctrine, from Rerum novarum to Fratelli tutti, the text offers a broad reflection on human dignity, work, education, communication, peace, and the civilization of love. The encyclical does not adopt an attitude of rejection toward technology, but calls for a moral discernment capable of orienting innovation toward the common good. The decisive question is not only what intelligent machines will be able to do, but what idea of the human person, society, and the future they will help to build. From this perspective, Magnifica humanitas calls believers and non-believers alike to the responsibility of inhabiting the digital world without sacrificing freedom, conscience, relationship, and love — that is, what makes the human being authentically human.
Keywords: #MagnificaHumanitas #LeoXIV #artificialintelligence #humandignity #civilizationoflove #socialdoctrine #digitalethics #education #work #peace #RobertoCerulli #EthicaSocietas #EthicaSocietasMagazine #ScientificJournal #SocialSciences #ethicasocietasupli
Roberto Cerulli (1971), for over 25 years in the Local Police, currently Commander of Capalbio (Grosseto), he is a jurist specializing in administrative law and human resources, the author of several books, and active in civil and religious volunteering. He is Regional Vice President of the Federation of Tuscan Misericordie and a member of the Council of Elders of the National Confederation of the Misericordie d’Italia.
We live in a time in which digital transformation no longer represents a sectoral phenomenon, confined to the world of technology or the economy, but constitutes a structural condition of contemporary experience, affecting the way human beings know, communicate, work, learn, decide, and build relationships. Every day, millions of people interact with artificial intelligence systems, entrust an increasingly significant part of their relational life to social networks, receive information selected by algorithms, and experience a reality increasingly mediated by digital infrastructures which, while expanding access to knowledge, introduce new forms of dependency, vulnerability, and conditioning.
This scenario, already complex from a cultural and anthropological standpoint, intersects with an international context marked by armed conflicts, persistent inequalities, transformations in the world of work, educational crises, and social tensions, all of which make it increasingly urgent to develop a reflection capable of removing technical progress from the logic of self-sufficiency and bringing it back to the fundamental question concerning the human person. It is within this horizon that Pope Leo XIV gives to the Church and to the world his first encyclical, Magnifica humanitas, on the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence, signed on 15 May 2026, on the 135th anniversary of Leo XIII’s Rerum novarum, and published on 25 May 2026 (Leo XIV, 2026a; Leo XIII, 1891).
The choice of date does not have a merely commemorative meaning, since it establishes an explicit relationship between the social question that emerged with the Industrial Revolution and the new anthropological question generated by the digital revolution. Just as Rerum novarum addressed the condition of workers in the face of the transformation of economic and productive relations, so Magnifica humanitas questions our time on the possibility that technological innovation, if not ordered toward the dignity of the person and the common good, may end up producing new forms of subordination, exclusion, and dehumanization.
It is not, therefore, a document addressed exclusively to specialists in computer science, experts in digital ethics, or technicians of innovation, but rather a broader reflection on contemporary humanity, on its fears, its hopes, and its responsibility to build a future in which progress is not configured as an autonomous power, but as a service to the human person. From this perspective, the encyclical addresses decisive issues such as artificial intelligence, work, communication, peace, social justice, the family, school, and the dignity of the person, showing how these areas cannot be separated from an integral vision of the human being and of his relational vocation.
The primacy of the person
From the very first pages, Leo XIV makes clear that his intention is neither to demonize technology nor to offer a technical treatment of artificial intelligence, but rather to provide a moral and social discernment capable of safeguarding the primacy of the person before instruments which, by virtue of their power, diffusion, and capacity to imitate cognitive functions, profoundly affect individual and collective life. The Pope does not adopt the perspective of those who fear every innovation, nor that of those who automatically identify technical progress with human progress, since technology, when it loses its reference to conscience and responsibility, can be transformed from a means of liberation into an apparatus of domination.
This is the interpretative core of the entire encyclical. For Leo XIV, the problem does not lie in technology as such, since human beings have always transformed the world through their ingenuity, but rather in the possibility that innovation may gradually be removed from moral judgment and placed at the service of merely functional, economic, or performance-based criteria. In an age that tends to measure everything through efficiency, speed, productivity, and computational capacity, Magnifica humanitas recalls the non-negotiable value of conscience, freedom, and personal responsibility.
This approach is situated within the great tradition of the Church’s social doctrine, which, from Rerum novarum to Centesimus annus, from the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church to Caritas in veritate, has constantly affirmed that the economy, technology, and institutions must be ordered toward the integral promotion of the person and the common good (Leo XIII, 1891; John Paul II, 1991; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004; Benedict XVI, 2009). Leo XIV takes up this line and projects it into the age of artificial intelligence, in which the risk is not only the material exploitation of the human being, but also his reduction to data, profile, function, behavioral prediction, or unit of consumption.
This point assumes particular relevance also on the civil and juridical level, because a society that measures the human being exclusively through quantitative parameters, automated classifications, productivity indicators, or predictive models inevitably ends up emptying the dignity of the person of its concrete substance. From this perspective, the language of fundamental rights risks remaining formally proclaimed but substantially weakened whenever decisions affecting freedom, work, access to services, information, or security are entrusted to opaque systems that are poorly controllable and not always comprehensible to the subjects who suffer their effects.
The new challenges of artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence occupies a central position in the reflection of Magnifica humanitas, not because it exhausts the entire content of the encyclical, but because it constitutes the symbolic and operational place in which the tension between technical power and moral responsibility becomes most evident. The Pontiff recognizes that such instruments can offer extraordinary opportunities in medicine, scientific research, education, environmental protection, and the organization of work, making possible the processing of large quantities of data, assistance in complex decisions, and faster access to forms of knowledge that were previously difficult to obtain.
Nevertheless, precisely because artificial intelligence is not a simple neutral tool, but a set of systems designed, trained, and governed according to specific criteria, Leo XIV warns against being seduced by a naïve conception of progress. Every technology in fact incorporates economic models, industrial interests, criteria for data selection, architectures of power, and implicit visions of efficiency, so that the issue concerns not only what a machine can accomplish, but who controls it, according to which rules, for what purposes, and with what consequences for the most vulnerable persons.
The reflection of the encyclical is directly connected to the Note Antiqua et nova, published in 2025 by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education, in which the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence is addressed on the basis of a fundamental anthropological distinction: artificial intelligence can simulate, assist, and amplify certain cognitive functions, but it does not possess conscience, freedom, moral intentionality, or personal responsibility (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith & Dicastery for Culture and Education, 2025). Leo XIV adopts this premise and develops it within a broader perspective, showing that the confusion between functional imitation and authentic personal subjectivity constitutes one of the greatest risks of the current technological age.
Generative AI platforms, now capable of producing texts, images, videos, computer code, and artificial conversations of strong emotional impact, make this ambivalence particularly evident. They can support learning, facilitate work, and broaden access to knowledge, but they can also weaken the exercise of critical judgment, foster cognitive dependencies, and lead human beings to delegate to automatic systems activities that require discernment, study, responsibility, and personal verification. The immediate availability of answers does not necessarily coincide with the growth of knowledge, since a society in which every answer appears instantly available risks losing the value of the question, that is, the very root of free thought.
No less delicate is the question of human relationships. The artificial imitation of words of advice, empathy, friendship, or love may be gratifying and even useful in certain contexts, but it may also generate confusion, especially in fragile or insufficiently aware subjects, leading them to mistake linguistic simulation for an authentic personal relationship. Here Leo XIV touches one of the deepest knots of digital modernity: the transformation of relationship into the appearance of relationship, in which the experience of the other is replaced by a programmed, adaptive response devoid of moral reciprocity.
When speech is simulated, it may produce comfort, but it does not necessarily generate communion; it may respond to a need, but it does not replace the face of the other; it may imitate empathy, but it cannot assume responsibility. The encyclical does not generically condemn such instruments, but recalls that no technology, however sophisticated, can replace the richness, effort, and reciprocity of an authentically human relationship.
Human dignity is not negotiable
One of the most significant passages of the encyclical concerns the dignity of the person, which Leo XIV places at the center of every reflection on the technological future. The Pope denounces a culture that risks evaluating human beings exclusively on the basis of their economic utility, productive capacity, efficiency, digital visibility, or the quantity of data they can generate, progressively transforming the person into a resource to be used, profiled, directed, and exploited.
In opposition to this paradigm, Magnifica humanitas reaffirms that the fundamental dignity of every person is not acquired, is not deserved, and does not need to be demonstrated. In a time in which many perceive themselves as judged by numbers, academic or professional performance, economic results, social approval, or the measurability of their efficiency, this affirmation assumes not only theological but also cultural and civil significance.
Dignity, in fact, does not depend on what the human being produces, on how much he earns, on the efficiency with which he operates, or on the image he manages to construct of himself in the digital space, but derives from his being a person, that is, a subject irreducible to any function. It is here that Leo XIV’s reflection encounters the core of the Christian personalist tradition and of the culture of fundamental rights, according to which the human being can never be treated merely as a means, an object of calculation, a statistical unit, or a replaceable component of a productive system.
This approach recalls Gaudium et spes, in which the Second Vatican Council affirms that the human person must be the principle, subject, and end of all social institutions (Second Vatican Council, 1965). Magnifica humanitas takes up this perspective and places it before digital transformation, recalling that even in the age of algorithms society cannot be organized around the machine, the market, or efficiency, but must preserve as its center the person in his bodily, spiritual, relational, and moral integrity.
The encyclical thus assumes a prophetic value, since it recalls that not every development is automatically human and not every innovation is automatically liberating. There are innovations that open new possibilities for care, knowledge, and participation, but there are others that produce dependency, isolation, exploitation, and concentration of power. The criterion of judgment always remains the same: the protection of personal dignity and the promotion of the common good.
School as a place of humanity
Particularly significant is the reflection devoted to school and education, since the digital revolution does not merely modify the instruments of learning, but affects the very relationship between knowledge, memory, attention, and judgment. Contemporary societies are witnessing an increasing difficulty in concentration, a reduction in time devoted to reading, a weakening of argumentative capacity, and the spread of the illusion that knowledge can be replaced by the mere availability of information.
Leo XIV addresses this question with notable clarity, observing that the presence of machines capable of providing immediate answers can extinguish in young people the desire to search, deepen, and ask questions. School, however, does not have the task of producing only skills functional to the market, but of forming persons capable of freedom, responsibility, discernment, and openness to truth.
In this perspective, the message of Leo XIV for the 102nd Day of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart also assumes relevance, since in it the experience of knowledge is brought back to the integral formation of the person and to educational responsibility (Leo XIV, 2026b). Education cannot be reduced to the efficient transmission of information, nor to mere professional preparation, but must preserve the question of meaning and the human capacity to understand one’s own time critically.
When the encyclical recalls the need to educate ourselves also to “fast” from artificial intelligence, it employs an expression of strong symbolic density, since fasting, in the Christian tradition, does not imply contempt for created good, but the exercise of freedom before that which may become dependency. It is not, therefore, a matter of excluding technology from school, but of preventing it from becoming a substitute for thought and for the educational relationship.
School is thus outlined as a privileged space of humanization, in which one learns what no algorithm can truly offer: the value of encounter, dialogue, error, effort, shared research, and educational presence. The teacher is not a mere distributor of information, but a figure who accompanies the formation of the person, orienting intelligence toward truth and freedom toward responsibility.
Digital education, consequently, cannot be limited to the acquisition of operational skills, but must become education in freedom, in the verification of sources, in the distinction between information and knowledge, between speed and understanding, between connection and relationship. An educational community that renounced this task would deliver young people not to the future, but to dependency on instruments that, if not governed by critical conscience, may weaken precisely what they promise to strengthen.
Work beyond profit
Another major question addressed by the encyclical concerns work, an area in which automation and digitalization are producing profound transformations, not only in terms of employment, but also in the perception of the value of human activity. Traditional professions are being redefined, some tasks are disappearing, others are emerging, while the entire labor market is being traversed by processes of reorganization based on efficiency, measurability, and the substitutability of performance.
Work, however, cannot be understood merely as a means of subsistence or as an economic variable. It also constitutes participation in the life of the community, an expression of personal dignity, a space of responsibility, and a contribution to the common good. This vision runs through the entire social doctrine of the Church, from Rerum novarum to Centesimus annus, up to Caritas in veritate, and finds in Magnifica humanitas a particularly significant updating in the face of the transformations produced by artificial intelligence (Leo XIII, 1891; John Paul II, 1991; Benedict XVI, 2009).
Leo XIV calls for these processes to be governed without sacrificing the dignity of persons, recalling that new ways of working are not necessarily better simply because they are more efficient, faster, or more technologically advanced. This affirmation represents a warning against the idea, widely widespread today, that every organizational innovation must automatically be considered progress. There are innovations that free human beings from burdensome, repetitive, or dangerous activities, but there are others that intensify control, increase precarity, isolate workers, and subordinate personal life to the logic of continuous performance.
For Leo XIV, technology must liberate the human being, not make him more vulnerable to coercion; it must support human work, not erase its value; it must foster a fairer distribution of opportunities, not concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few actors capable of controlling infrastructures, data, and algorithms. Here too, the fundamental criterion remains the good of the human person and of communities.
From this perspective, public regulation of artificial intelligence does not constitute an obstacle to progress, but a condition of its democratic legitimacy. When technologies capable of affecting work, access to services, credit, security, and information are governed exclusively by private interests, the freedom of persons risks becoming dependent on opaque powers that are difficult to control and not always oriented toward the common good.
Communication, truth, and disinformation
A further profile of particular importance concerns the relationship between communication and truth. The digital revolution has multiplied the possibilities of access to information, but it has also amplified manipulation, polarization, disinformation, and communicative aggression. Generative artificial intelligence makes it increasingly easy to produce false content, synthetic images, artificial voices, and persuasive texts that are difficult to distinguish from authentic ones, introducing a crisis that is not only informational, but epistemological and fiduciary.
In this context, Leo XIV recalls the need for an ecology of communication. It is not enough to communicate more, nor is it sufficient to multiply the channels through which information circulates; rather, it is necessary to communicate better, with responsibility, respect for truth, and attention to the social consequences of words. A society saturated with messages is not necessarily a more informed society, since it may become, on the contrary, more confused, more manipulable, and more exposed to hatred.
This theme is directly connected to Pope Francis’s reflection on fraternity and social friendship, since in Fratelli tutti communication is not understood as a mere exchange of messages, but as the possibility of mutual recognition and the construction of authentic bonds (Francis, 2020). Magnifica humanitas takes up this requirement and places it before the power of generative technologies, capable of amplifying both knowledge and falsehood.
From this perspective, the encyclical also speaks to journalism, politics, schools, families, and digital platforms, recalling that freedom of expression cannot be separated from responsibility. The technology that makes the instantaneous circulation of words possible must be accompanied by a conscience capable of distinguishing criticism from aggression, dissent from hatred, news from manipulation, and authentic communication from the industrial production of consensus.
Peace in the age of algorithms
Among the most intense pages of the document are those devoted to war, since the encyclical is published at a time in which numerous conflicts continue to affect different regions of the world and in which technology assumes an increasingly prominent role in military systems. Autonomous drones, predictive systems, cyber warfare, algorithmic surveillance, and disinformation campaigns are profoundly changing the way wars are fought, making the distinction between front line and rear, between civilian space and military space, between information and strategic offensive increasingly unstable.
Leo XIV clearly affirms that no algorithm can make war morally acceptable. Technology can make war faster, more precise, and more distant, but it does not thereby make it more human. On the contrary, the risk is that technological distance may reduce the perception of the suffering of victims, weaken the sense of personal responsibility, and make the resort to violence easier.
This passage is decisive, because technological warfare can generate the illusion of a clean, controlled, and surgical conflict, whereas behind every military decision there continue to be bodies, lives, families, cities, children, the elderly, the wounded, and refugees. The mediation of the screen and of the algorithm does not eliminate moral responsibility; on the contrary, it can conceal it, fragment it, and make it less perceptible, without however erasing it.
The encyclical therefore invites us to recover the culture of dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiation, opposing that culture of power which tends to regard technological superiority as the foundation of political legitimacy. This appeal is situated within the line of Gaudium et spes, which had already denounced the moral gravity of modern war and the need to build peace on justice, cooperation, and respect for the person (Second Vatican Council, 1965). In the age of artificial intelligence, this lesson becomes even more urgent, since peace cannot be delegated to technology, but requires moral conversion, political responsibility, and recognition of the other as a person.
The family and community in the digital age
The document also recalls the role of the family and of communities as places in which the person learns not to be reduced to an isolated individual. The digital environment can foster connections, but it does not always build bonds; it can multiply contacts, but it does not necessarily generate proximity; it can offer continuous entertainment, but it may also nourish solitude, dependency, and fragmentation of attention.
From this perspective, the family is not presented as a nostalgic refuge against modernity, but as the first place of education in reality, since it is in the concreteness of family and community relationships that the human being learns that the other is not a profile, an avatar, a competitor, or a function, but a person. It is in this original experience that one learns patience, forgiveness, care, limitation, and reciprocal responsibility.
Leo XIV thus seems to suggest that the digital challenge cannot be addressed solely through laws, protocols, or regulations, however necessary they may be. Relational fabrics capable of sustaining the person in his concrete freedom must be rebuilt, since without living communities the individual remains more exposed to the power of platforms, emotional manipulation, and connected solitude.
From this perspective, the family and the Christian community assume an essential educational function, since they can teach a free use of technology, preserve times of silence, promote real relationships, and offer spaces in which the person is not evaluated by performance, image, or visibility, but welcomed in his irreducible dignity.
Integral ecology and technology
Magnifica humanitas also dialogues with Laudato si’, especially insofar as it invites us to understand technology within an integral vision of the human person and of creation. Pope Francis had already warned against the technocratic paradigm, that is, the tendency to regard every reality as an object available to be manipulated and exploited (Francis, 2015). Leo XIV takes up this intuition and applies it to the age of artificial intelligence, showing that the risk is not only environmental, but also anthropological.
If technology becomes the dominant way of looking at the world, the human being too ends up being treated as available matter: data to be extracted, behaviors to be predicted, desires to be directed, decisions to be conditioned. Integral ecology therefore also becomes an ecology of the mind, of relationship, of communication, and of freedom, since the care of our common home cannot be separated from the care of the human.
Artificial intelligence, like every great technical power, therefore requires a question of meaning. What is it for? Who benefits from its development? Who bears its costs? Which persons risk being excluded? Which decisions must never be removed from human responsibility? These are the questions that the encyclical poses with force, recalling that authentic progress does not coincide with the accumulation of power, but with the growth of humanity in justice, fraternity, and freedom.
The civilization of love
The ultimate horizon of the encyclical is both spiritual and social. Faced with a world often dominated by the logic of force, competition, and individual interest, Leo XIV proposes anew the expression, dear to the Magisterium of the Church, of the civilization of love. This is not a rhetorical formula or a sentimental utopia, but a concrete criterion for the organization of personal and social life.
The civilization of love is born whenever truth is chosen instead of falsehood, dialogue instead of hatred, solidarity instead of indifference, care instead of discard. It is built when technology is oriented toward the common good and not toward domination, when the dignity of the person prevails over economic interests, when the other is recognized not as a competitor, obstacle, or digital profile, but as a brother.
This perspective is connected to Fratelli tutti, in which fraternity is proposed as a political and social criterion, not merely as a private virtue (Francis, 2020). Leo XIV receives this legacy and projects it into the age of artificial intelligence, implicitly affirming that, if technology increases human power, only love can rightly orient its direction. Without this orientation, power becomes domination; with it, it can become service.
The civilization of love is therefore not an alternative to technology, but to its idolatry. It does not ask us to flee from the future, but to inhabit it with a conscience greater than the machine; it does not reject innovation, but demands that it be judged in the light of the human person, the poor, peace, and the common good.
A compass for inhabiting the future
The reading of Magnifica humanitas offers a fundamental conviction: Leo XIV does not fear the future, but refuses to allow it to be handed over to the automatism of technology, the apparent neutrality of the market, or the impersonal logic of efficiency. There is, in the encyclical, no nostalgia for an idealized past, nor any prejudicial condemnation of technological innovation; rather, there is the awareness that every age is called to choose the direction to give to its own development.
The real question, therefore, is not how powerful artificial intelligence will become, but what humanity we wish to build through it and despite it. A society may possess increasingly intelligent machines and, at the same time, become less capable of listening, understanding, forgiving, educating, and loving; it may increase its efficiency and lose its soul; it may multiply connections and lose communion.
For this reason, Magnifica humanitas presents itself as a spiritual, ethical, and social compass for inhabiting the digital world without losing the Gospel, for using technologies without becoming enslaved by them, and for building the future without losing sight of the human face. The decisive challenge of our time does not consist in creating ever more intelligent machines, but in safeguarding a humanity still capable of truth, justice, freedom, and love.
It is in this perspective that the deepest message of Leo XIV’s encyclical resides: technology may certainly change the world, but only love will be able to make it truly human.
ESSENTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Benedict XVI. (2009). Caritas in veritate. Encyclical letter on integral human development in charity and truth. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Second Vatican Council. (1965). Gaudium et spes. Pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith & Dicastery for Culture and Education. (2025). Antiqua et nova. Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Francis. (2015). Laudato si’. Encyclical letter on care for our common home. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Francis. (2020). Fratelli tutti. Encyclical letter on fraternity and social friendship. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
John Paul II. (1991). Centesimus annus. Encyclical letter on the hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarum. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Leo XIII. (1891). Rerum novarum. Encyclical letter on the condition of labor. Rome: Vatican Press.
Leo XIV. (2026a). Magnifica humanitas. Encyclical letter on the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Leo XIV. (2026b). Message of the Holy Father, signed by Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin, on the occasion of the 102nd Day of the Catholic University. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
INSTITUTIONAL WEBLIOGRAPHY
Holy See – Archive of the Pontifical Magisterium: https://www.vatican.va
Vatican News – Information Portal of the Holy See: https://www.vaticannews.va
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith: https://www.dicasteryforthedoctrineofthefaith.va
Dicastery for Culture and Education: https://www.dce.va
SIR Agency – Religious Information Service: https://www.agensir.it
Libreria Editrice Vaticana: https://www.libreriaeditricevaticana.va
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church – Holy See: https://www.vatican.va
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS BY THE SAME AUTHOR
NETWORK COLLABORATION IN THE ENHANCEMENT OF ABANDONED HISTORICAL HERITAGE
THE OSTENSION OF THE MORTAL REMAINS OF SAINT FRANCIS OF ASSISI: BETWEEN FAITH AND HISTORY
VOLUNTARY CIVIL PROTECTION: A RESCUE DIARY
IRAN: REPRESSION AND THE CRISIS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
SAINT SEBASTIAN, PATRON SAINT OF ITALIAN LOCAL POLICE
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS CONTRIBUTIONS ON AI
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND CLINICAL RISK IN HOSPITALS: FROM AUTOMATION TO GOVERNED ACCOUNTABILITY
ETHICAL GOVERNANCE OF CRITICAL SYSTEMS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: THE CASE OF BUSHEHR
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AT THE SERVICE OF HUMANITY
THE IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON CORPORATE FINANCE
FIVE LATEST CONTRIBUTIONS
ANOTHER YOUNG LOCAL POLICE OFFICER HAS DIED BY SUICIDE
DREAMING ON THE TIBER BETWEEN CULTURE, ELEGANCE AND SOLIDARITY
DESTROYING IMAGES, GOVERNING MEMORY: JIHADIST ICONOCLASM AND COGNITIVE WARFARE
Ethica Societas is a free, non-profit review published by a social cooperative non-profit organization
Copyright Ethica Societas, Human&Social Science Review © 2026 by Ethica Societas UPLI onlus.
ISSN 2785-602X. Licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0