Digital Immortality and its Morality

The idea of immortality has been prevalent in humanity for thousands of years, whether in mythology or literature. Still, it is only now, in the current digital age, that it may actually be achieved. From Artificial Intelligence (AI) that can mimic your loved ones to companies that are exploring ‘mind uploading’, the idea of digital immortality is now more than simply a science fiction concept. Tech companies, such as Replika and Eternime, preserve aspects of our being: personalities, memories, and even thoughts, beyond death (Hamilton, 2018). This raises a profound philosophical question: if immortality becomes possible, do we actually want it for ourselves? 

Transhumanists advocate using technology to overcome human limitations and enhance human capabilities. Such thinkers, like Nick Bostrom, argue that overcoming death would be one of humanity’s most outstanding achievements. In his work A History of Transhumanist Thought, Bostrom (2005) primarily suggests that by extending human life through enhancing the biological body and reducing suffering through medical and technological intervention, we could free ourselves from suffering while opening new possibilities for flourishing. However, he also situates more radical possibilities, such as AI and ‘uploading’, within the larger transhumanist landscape. Although he does not explicitly present digital consciousness as the central or inevitable route to overcoming death, he includes mind uploading among several potential future modes of existence. Thus, Bostrom’s account encompasses both physical life extension and the possibility of non-biological continuations of the self, while emphasising that transhumanism does not depend on the feasibility of any single pathway. From his perspective, if we reject the pursuit of immortality, we would be acting irrationally (Bostrom, 2005). If we can improve the human condition, why would we not attempt to overcome its most significant limitation? 

There are many other philosophers who argue that mortality is the necessary element that gives our lives meaning. Martin Heidegger (1962) defined human existence as ‘being toward death,’ suggesting that our consciousness of death shapes our authenticity and sense of purpose in life. In his essay The Makropulos Case, Bernard Williams (1973) expanded on this argument, arguing that eternal life would eventually become dull. He maintained that all wants would fade and life itself would become less valuable if we could achieve anything we wanted. In other words, death may not be a bad thing but rather a necessary component of what gives life purpose. 

Further issues that arise beyond personal significance include equality and social justice. How would access to digital immortality be distributed if it were made a reality? It is plausible that only the wealthy can afford to live longer in an already disadvantaged society. According to Michael Sandel (2012), technological advancement has the potential to become the ultimate luxury good, thereby enhancing global inequality and posing new ethical and political dilemmas about who should live longer and why. 

Furthermore, issues arise surrounding personal identity; if your memories and consciousness were uploaded into a digital system, would that version actually be you, or would it simply be a copy? Derek Parfit (1984) argued that personal identity is not about a single continuous soul but about psychological continuity, such as the persistence of your memories and character. Even if a digital copy can perfectly replicate your mind, it would not share your subjective experience. Susan Schneider (2019) highlights that uploading the mind may preserve information but not consciousness. The copy would think it was you, but your awareness would still end with your physical death. If death becomes something we can delay or replicate digitally, we risk losing the ability to recognise and appreciate the frailty of life and the importance of a farewell. 

However, it is essential that we do not outright dismiss these developments. Humanity has always sought ways to leave a legacy, whether physically or through memory. In that sense, digital immortality is a new form of remembrance; yet, even if we can preserve aspects of the mind, we should ask what kind of life we are keeping. Ultimately, the search for digital immortality forces us to consider what it truly means to be human. If death is the source of life's purpose, then avoiding it might mean losing that purpose. The question is not how we can live forever, but why we would want to? As we move further into the age of AI, that may be the most important question of all. 

Bibliography 

Bostrom, N. (2005). A history of transhumanist thought. Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14(1), pp. 1-25. Available at: doi:10.1177/00243639241281977.  

Hamilton, IA. (2018). 2 tech founders lost their friends in tragic accidents. Now they’ve built AI chatbots to give people life after death. [Online]. Business Insider. Last updated: 17 November 2018. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/eternime-and-replika-giving-life-to-the-dead-with-new-technology-2018-11 [Accessed 31 October 2025].

Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time. Translated from German by J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell. 

Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Sandel, MJ. (2012). What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Schneider, S. (2019). Artificial You: AI and the Future of Your Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Williams, B. (1973). The Makropulos Case: Reflections on the Tedium of Immortality. In: Problems of the Self: Philosophical Papers 1956-1972. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 82-100.