A line of thought arguing that Artificial Intelligence is first and foremost "philosophy by other means ", and not simply a wonderful technology, must inevitably confront the ethical debates that have been going on for years on the responsibilities, moral choices, decisions that the advent of these systems will require. At the same time, this is not an easy choice: the debate, indeed the ethical debates on IA, are so many and varied as to discourage a philosophical approach, precisely because such debates are too "ethical", and this be said without irony. In almost all these discussions, in fact, "Ethics” means a moral reflection on behaviors, responsibilities, rights and values; but all this, while correct, is at the same meaningless if one does not consider at the same time Ethics not as "a field" of Philosophy but philosophy at large and nothing less. Problem specificities, or fields of study separation, does not work in Philosophy. On the contrary, everything is held and must be held together, otherwise we fall back quickly into edification and contradiction. The specificities of ethical debates cannot be separated from the rest of the Truth, and in this concrete unity lies the difference between a philosophical truth and other types of truth. Forgetfulness of this specific unity produces two opposing yet mirrorly identical results: on the one side the ethical debate is forced on the path of abstraction (as in the famous cart dilemma and other problems similar to game theories1); on the opposite side the thirst for concreteness is satisfied with pragmatic solutions that perpetuate the existing while a political, economic and social revolution comparable to the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century is announced. We will outline both these outcomes when we are meet them in the course of our discussion.