Reader’s note: New readers are encouraged to begin with Part 0 , Chapter 4 (“Architecture of the Series and Reader Orientation ”), which provides a brief overview and orientation to the Framework. Links to Preprints are listed in Part 0, Chapter 5 (“Publication and Citation Record”) Teaching & Course Use This text is suitable for use in advanced undergraduate and graduate-level courses in philosophy of technology, AI ethics, governance studies, and interdisciplinary digital studies. It can serve as a conceptual entry point for seminar discussions on normative pluralism, comparative frameworks, and cross-cultural governance. A short Teaching Guide and Reader Note (including learning objectives, suggested classroom use, discussion questions, and integrated case-based assignments) is available here:→ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18280793 This preprint introduces a unified three-axis framework for analysing AI governance across cultural traditions and regulatory environments. Integrating Augustine’s concept of moral order, Confucian relational ethics, and cross-continental regulatory orientations, the framework provides a structured approach to understanding how AI reshapes moral priorities, social hierarchy, and institutional authority. The framework is intended as a conceptual tool for diagnosing alignment challenges, relational disruptions, and regulatory contradictions, supporting well-being-oriented oversight, platform governance, and high-impact AI assessment. Version 1.2 (2025-11-24): includes a refined definition of “irrationality loops”—cross-domain feedback cycles in which distortions on one axis propagate into moral, relational, or institutional misalignments. These loops capture systemic governance instabilities emerging in AI-mediated environments. Version 2 (2025-12-02): Minor updates Version 3 This update adds two clarifying sentences—one in the Introduction and one in the Conclusion—to explicitly indicate that the full formalisation and taxonomic development of the axes is completed in later parts of the series. The References section has been refined for consistency (removal of policy-specific references and alignment with standard bibliographic formats). No changes were made to the conceptual structure, analytical logic, or argumentative trajectory of Part I. Version 3.1 (2025-12-07): Minor updates, added explicit positioning of Part I within the Wittenberg Framework series, including references and DOIs to related preprints (Parts 0–VI). Introduced dedicated sections “What Is New” and “What Is Established and Reused” to clarify originality and reuse of established traditions. Added an explanatory description of the triangular, non-metric representation of the Three-Axis Framework. Refined the Conclusion to clearly situate Part I as the conceptual foundation of the series and to reference subsequent methodological, taxonomic, and validation parts. Minor structural and editorial improvements for clarity and consistency (American English). Version 4.0 (2025-12-18): Minor updates Version 5.0 (2026-01-12): This version clarifies the structural status of Part I as a concrete instantiation of the Wittenberg Framework rather than as its exhaustive definition. The title, abstract, conceptual framing, and conclusion were revised to align with the root architecture specified in Part 0. A canonical definition of the Framework was added, and all scope-related attributions were harmonized accordingly. The cover page and section headings were also harmonized with the revised series logic. These changes stabilize the interpretive scope, citation logic, and long-term consistency of the series without altering the substantive theoretical content of the paper. Version 6.0 (2026-02-02): Formal formatting update to journal- and dissertation-standard layout (Times New Roman, 12 pt, double-spaced). Reference list standardized according to APA guidelines. No changes to content, structure, or argumentation. Version 7.0 (2026-02-20): This revision clarifies the conceptual scope and positioning of Part I as a specific analytical instantiation within the Wittenberg Framework series. References suggesting a comprehensive research programme were removed, and the philosophical framing was strengthened by defining the cited traditions as interpretive reference perspectives rather than normative commitments. Structural and linguistic refinements improve conceptual precision, internal coherence, and standalone readability without changing the core analytical content.
Ingo Wittenberg (Mon,) studied this question.