Bridging AI Education and Catholic Social Teachings: Lessons from Sam Altman’s Paradigmatic Perspectives

This paper examined Sam Altman’s discourse on AI through the lens of epistemological pluralism (positivist, post-positivist, interpretivist, constructivist, and pragmatic) and assesses its implications for Catholic higher education guided by Catholic Social Teaching (CST). Altman’s paradigm pluralism is evident in his TEDx talk: his positivist stance emphasizes measurable progress and capability growth, while his post-positivist approach acknowledges high uncertainty and the provisional nature of knowledge, promoting caution and ethical reflection. His interpretivist stance values human relationality and meaning ("you will still really care about when you’re talking to a human"), and his constructivist view stresses that humans must set the rules for AI governance. Finally, his pragmatism focuses on iterative learning, action, and practical application. CST principles—human dignity, the common good, solidarity, and subsidiarity —align strongly with Altman's post-positivist, interpretivist, and constructivist orientations, affirming moral agency and human-centered design. However, pure positivism risks reducing human worth to performance metrics, contradicting CST's view of intrinsic human dignity. Unconstrained pragmatism risks prioritizing efficiency over ethical boundaries, conflicting with the preferential option for the poor. The study proposed practicable recommendations for Catholic higher education, including integrating technical skills with ethical oversight (positivist constraint), cultivating critical reflection (post-positivist), centering curricula on human experience (interpretivist), promoting participatory governance (constructivist), and ensuring practical AI applications are morally constrained (pragmatic). This synthesis aims to cultivate graduates who are technically competent, ethically informed, and socially responsible.

Artificial Intelligence (AI), Catholic Social Teaching (CST), Epistemological Pluralism

1. Altman, S. (2023). AI, governance, and the responsibility of innovation [Testimony before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee]. U.S. Congress. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Altman, S. (2024). The future of artificial intelligence and global cooperation. OpenAI Policy Forum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Altman, S. (2025, January). Sam Altman on the future of AI and humanity (Transcript). https://www.ted.com/pages/sam-altman-on-the-future-of-ai-and-humanity-transcript [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Altman, S. (2025). Artificial intelligence, innovation, and ethical governance. OpenAI Policy Series. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Benjamin, R. (2019). Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim Code. Polity Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Anchor Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Biography.com. (2025). Sam Altman biography. A&E Television Networks. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Bostrom, N. (2014). Superintelligence: Paths, dangers, strategies. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1997). Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Comte, A. (1975). The positive philosophy (H. Martineau, Trans.). AMS Press. (Original work published 1853) [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. Henry Holt and Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/… of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Floridi, L. (2023). Ethics, governance, and the digital transformation. Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Francis. (2015). Laudato si’: On care for our common home. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Francis. (2024). Address to participants in the session on artificial intelligence. Vatican.va. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Francis. (2015). Laudato si’: On care for our common home. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests (J. J. Shapiro, Trans.). Beacon Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Jasanoff, S. (2021). Reimagining innovation: Technology, governance, and the public good. MIT Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. John Paul II. (1987). Sollicitudo rei socialis. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Kolmos, A., Hadgraft, R. G., & Holgaard, J. E. (2021). Response strategies for curriculum change in engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(2), 391–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09506-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Long, S. J. (2017). Christian ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Practical strategies for combining qualitative and quantitative methods: Mixed methods research in practice. Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513733 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Müller, V. C. (2020). Ethics of artificial intelligence and robotics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2020 ed.). Stanford University. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. OpenAI. (2024). GPT-4 technical report and system card. OpenAI [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Paul VI. (1965). Gaudium et spes. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Postpositivism and educational research. Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Pius XI. (1931). Quadragesimo anno. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Pontifical Academy for Life. (2020). Rome call for AI ethics. Vatican Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2004). Compendium of the social doctrine of the Church. Libreria Editrice Vaticana. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Rahwan, I., Cebrian, M., Obradovich, N., et al. (2019). Machine behaviour. Nature, 568(7753), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1138-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Roche, M., Eberl, J. T., & Tollefsen, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence and human dignity: Catholic perspectives. Theological Studies, 83(4), 742–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/00405639221124865 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Rosenfeld, A., et al. (2021). Ethics and AI education: Building responsible technology curricula. AI & Society, 36(3), 567–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01056-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Rosenfeld, A., Richardson, A., & Brandt, S. (2021). Teaching ethics in AI and data science: Pedagogical approaches and outcomes. AI & Society, 36(3), 937–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01078-1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Selwyn, N. (2022). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Smith, J., & Anderson, M. (2020). AI ethics initiatives in higher education: Emerging models and challenges. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 42(6), 589–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2020.1796773 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Winner, L. (2020). Technologies as forms of life revisited. Technology and Culture, 61(2), 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2020.0043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Zawacki-Richter, O., Bond, M., Marin, V. I., & Gouverneur, F. (2023). Systematic review of research on artificial intelligence applications in higher education—Where are the educators? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-023-00392-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Assessment of the Role of Artificial Intelligence in Repositioning TVET for Economic Development in Nigeria
• Teachers’ Use of Assure Model Instructional Design on Learners’ Problem Solving Efficacy in Secondary Schools in Bungoma County, Kenya
• “E-Booksan Ang Kaalaman”: Development, Validation, and Utilization of Electronic Book in Academic Performance of Grade 9 Students in Social Studies
• Analyzing EFL University Students’ Academic Speaking Skills Through Self-Recorded Video Presentation
• Major Findings of The Study on Total Quality Management in Teachers’ Education Institutions (TEIs) In Assam – An Evaluative Study