The Moral Debater: A Study on the Computational Generation of Morally Framed Arguments

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.14563v1
• Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2022 08:07:13 GMT
• Title: The Moral Debater: A Study on the Computational Generation of Morally Framed Arguments
• Authors: Milad Alshomary, Roxanne El Baff, Timon Gurcke, and Henning Wachsmuth
• Abstract summary: An audience's prior beliefs and morals are strong indicators of how likely they will be affected by a given argument. We propose a system that effectively generates arguments focusing on different morals. Our results suggest that, particularly when prior beliefs are challenged, an audience becomes more affected by morally framed arguments.
• Score: 19.741685596196454
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: An audience's prior beliefs and morals are strong indicators of how likely they will be affected by a given argument. Utilizing such knowledge can help focus on shared values to bring disagreeing parties towards agreement. In argumentation technology, however, this is barely exploited so far. This paper studies the feasibility of automatically generating morally framed arguments as well as their effect on different audiences. Following the moral foundation theory, we propose a system that effectively generates arguments focusing on different morals. In an in-depth user study, we ask liberals and conservatives to evaluate the impact of these arguments. Our results suggest that, particularly when prior beliefs are challenged, an audience becomes more affected by morally framed arguments.

Related papers

• MoralBERT: A Fine-Tuned Language Model for Capturing Moral Values in Social Discussions [4.747987317906765]
  Moral values play a fundamental role in how we evaluate information, make decisions, and form judgements around important social issues. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) show that moral values can be gauged in human-generated textual content. This paper introduces MoralBERT, a range of language representation models fine-tuned to capture moral sentiment in social discourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-12T14:12:59Z)
• What Makes it Ok to Set a Fire? Iterative Self-distillation of Contexts and Rationales for Disambiguating Defeasible Social and Moral Situations [48.686872351114964]
  Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. We introduce defeasible moral reasoning: a task to provide grounded contexts that make an action more or less morally acceptable. We distill a high-quality dataset of 1.2M entries of contextualizations and rationales for 115K defeasible moral actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T00:51:29Z)
• Moral Foundations of Large Language Models [6.6445242437134455]
  Moral foundations theory (MFT) is a psychological assessment tool that decomposes human moral reasoning into five factors. As large language models (LLMs) are trained on datasets collected from the internet, they may reflect the biases that are present in such corpora. This paper uses MFT as a lens to analyze whether popular LLMs have acquired a bias towards a particular set of moral values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T20:05:37Z)
• Rethinking Machine Ethics -- Can LLMs Perform Moral Reasoning through the Lens of Moral Theories? [78.3738172874685]
  Making moral judgments is an essential step toward developing ethical AI systems. Prevalent approaches are mostly implemented in a bottom-up manner, which uses a large set of annotated data to train models based on crowd-sourced opinions about morality. This work proposes a flexible top-down framework to steer (Large) Language Models (LMs) to perform moral reasoning with well-established moral theories from interdisciplinary research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-29T15:57:32Z)
• MoralDial: A Framework to Train and Evaluate Moral Dialogue Systems via Moral Discussions [71.25236662907056]
  A moral dialogue system aligned with users' values could enhance conversation engagement and user connections. We propose a framework, MoralDial, to train and evaluate moral dialogue systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-21T02:21:37Z)
• ClarifyDelphi: Reinforced Clarification Questions with Defeasibility Rewards for Social and Moral Situations [81.70195684646681]
  We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask clarification questions. We posit that questions whose potential answers lead to diverging moral judgments are the most informative. Our work is ultimately inspired by studies in cognitive science that have investigated the flexibility in moral cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T16:33:09Z)
• Persua: A Visual Interactive System to Enhance the Persuasiveness of Arguments in Online Discussion [52.49981085431061]
  Enhancing people's ability to write persuasive arguments could contribute to the effectiveness and civility in online communication. We derived four design goals for a tool that helps users improve the persuasiveness of arguments in online discussions. Persua is an interactive visual system that provides example-based guidance on persuasive strategies to enhance the persuasiveness of arguments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-16T08:07:53Z)
• Contextualized moral inference [12.574316678945195]
  We present a text-based approach that predicts people's intuitive judgment of moral vignettes. We show that a contextualized representation offers a substantial advantage over alternative representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-25T00:34:28Z)
• What Changed Your Mind: The Roles of Dynamic Topics and Discourse in Argumentation Process [78.4766663287415]
  This paper presents a study that automatically analyzes the key factors in argument persuasiveness. We propose a novel neural model that is able to track the changes of latent topics and discourse in argumentative conversations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-10T04:27:48Z)
• Text-based inference of moral sentiment change [11.188112005462536]
  We present a text-based framework for investigating moral sentiment change of the public via longitudinal corpora. We build our methodology by exploring moral biases learned from diachronic word embeddings. Our work offers opportunities for applying natural language processing toward characterizing moral sentiment change in society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-20T18:52:45Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.