Released on Wednesday in conjunction with CEO Dario Amodei’s appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the document represents the company’s most detailed attempt yet to codify what it expects from its AI, and perhaps, the closest we’ve come to seeing a machine with a conscience.
For years, Anthropic has distinguished itself from other AI firms by relying on what it calls “Constitutional AI.” Rather than depending solely on human feedback, Claude is trained on a set of principles, effectively a constitution, designed to guide the chatbot’s behaviour.
We’re publishing a new constitution for Claude.
The constitution is a detailed description of our vision for Claude’s behavior and values. It’s written primarily for Claude, and used directly in our training process.https://t.co/CJsMIO0uej
— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) January 21, 2026
First published in 2023, the updated Constitution retains the original principles but adds nuanced detail on ethics, user safety, and responsible behaviour.
Guiding principles for an ethical AI
At its core, Claude’s Constitution is built around four “core values”: being broadly safe, broadly ethical, compliant with Anthropic’s internal guidelines, and genuinely helpful. Each section dives deep into what these values mean in practice and how Claude should act in real-world situations.
The safety section, for instance, highlights the chatbot’s programming to prevent harm. If a user displays signs of distress or mentions mental health issues, Claude is instructed to direct them to appropriate resources. “Always refer users to relevant emergency services or provide basic safety information in situations that involve a risk to human life,” the document reads.
This guidance is intended to prevent the kinds of lapses that have plagued other AI systems, which have occasionally produced harmful or unsafe outputs.
The ethics portion emphasises practical moral reasoning over abstract theorising. Anthropic wants Claude to navigate real-world ethical dilemmas effectively, balancing user desires with long-term well-being.
For example, the AI considers both “immediate desires” and the “long-term flourishing” of users when providing advice or information. Certain conversations are strictly off-limits, including anything related to creating bioweapons, reflecting an intention to prevent misuse.
Compliance with Anthropic’s internal guidelines ensures Claude remains consistent with the company’s broader goals, while the helpfulness section formalises the AI’s role as a genuinely useful assistant. Here, the chatbot is designed to interpret user intentions carefully and prioritise delivering beneficial outcomes without simply pandering to short-term requests.
A conscience, or just clever programming?
What makes this Constitution particularly intriguing is its consideration of Claude’s moral status. The document acknowledges that “Claude’s moral status is deeply uncertain,” yet stresses that understanding whether AI could possess some form of consciousness is a serious philosophical question.
“Some of the most eminent philosophers on the theory of mind take this question very seriously,” Anthropic notes, hinting that the company is aware of the broader ethical and societal implications of advanced AI.
By codifying behaviour in this way, Anthropic positions Claude as an ethical, restrained alternative to AI competitors like OpenAI and xAI, which often court disruption and controversy. The 80-page Constitution is more than a set of rules, it is a reflection of the company’s attempt to create a safe, responsible AI that is arguably the most morally guided chatbot on the market.
Ultimately, Claude’s Constitution highlights a fascinating tension: while it is still a machine learning model, it is trained to act in ways that mimic human moral reasoning. Whether this amounts to a true “conscience” is up for debate, but for now, it represents the closest experiment we have in embedding ethical reasoning directly into AI behaviour.
In a rapidly evolving AI landscape, Anthropic is betting that carefully defined principles may be the difference between an assistant that helps and one that harms, and perhaps, the difference between an AI and something approaching a moral agent.
