The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analyzing Moral Foundation Priorities in Large Language Models with a Multi-Framework Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19255v1
• Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2025 14:26:48 GMT
• Title: The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analyzing Moral Foundation Priorities in Large Language Models with a Multi-Framework Approach
• Authors: Chad Coleman, W. Russell Neuman, Ali Dasdan, Safinah Ali, Manan Shah,
• Abstract summary: This paper introduces the Priorities in Reasoning and Intrinsic Moral Evaluation (PRIME) framework.<n>PRIME is a comprehensive methodology for analyzing moral priorities across foundational ethical dimensions.<n>We apply this framework to six leading large language models (LLMs) through a dual-protocol approach.
• Score: 6.0972634521845475
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in consequential decision-making contexts, systematically assessing their ethical reasoning capabilities becomes a critical imperative. This paper introduces the Priorities in Reasoning and Intrinsic Moral Evaluation (PRIME) framework--a comprehensive methodology for analyzing moral priorities across foundational ethical dimensions including consequentialist-deontological reasoning, moral foundations theory, and Kohlberg's developmental stages. We apply this framework to six leading LLMs through a dual-protocol approach combining direct questioning and response analysis to established ethical dilemmas. Our analysis reveals striking patterns of convergence: all evaluated models demonstrate strong prioritization of care/harm and fairness/cheating foundations while consistently underweighting authority, loyalty, and sanctity dimensions. Through detailed examination of confidence metrics, response reluctance patterns, and reasoning consistency, we establish that contemporary LLMs (1) produce decisive ethical judgments, (2) demonstrate notable cross-model alignment in moral decision-making, and (3) generally correspond with empirically established human moral preferences. This research contributes a scalable, extensible methodology for ethical benchmarking while highlighting both the promising capabilities and systematic limitations in current AI moral reasoning architectures--insights critical for responsible development as these systems assume increasingly significant societal roles.

Related papers

• Alignment and Safety in Large Language Models: Safety Mechanisms, Training Paradigms, and Emerging Challenges [47.14342587731284]
  This survey provides a comprehensive overview of alignment techniques, training protocols, and empirical findings in large language models (LLMs) alignment.<n>We analyze the development of alignment methods across diverse paradigms, characterizing the fundamental trade-offs between core alignment objectives.<n>We discuss state-of-the-art techniques, including Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Constitutional AI, brain-inspired methods, and alignment uncertainty quantification (AUQ)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-25T20:52:58Z)
• Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners? [69.85385952436044]
  We focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-27T17:51:18Z)
• The Staircase of Ethics: Probing LLM Value Priorities through Multi-Step Induction to Complex Moral Dilemmas [20.792208554628367]
  We introduce the Multi-step Moral Dilemmas dataset to evaluate the evolving moral judgments of LLMs across 3,302 five-stage dilemmas.<n>This framework enables a fine-grained, dynamic analysis of how LLMs adjust their moral reasoning across escalating dilemmas.<n>Our findings call for a shift toward dynamic, context-aware evaluation paradigms, paving the way for more human-aligned and value-sensitive development of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T17:59:50Z)
• Ethical AI in the Healthcare Sector: Investigating Key Drivers of Adoption through the Multi-Dimensional Ethical AI Adoption Model (MEAAM) [1.5458951336481048]
  This study introduces the Multi-Dimensional Ethical AI Adoption Model (MEAAM)<n>It categorizes 13 critical ethical variables across four foundational dimensions of Ethical AI Fair AI, Responsible AI, Explainable AI, and Sustainable AI.<n>It investigates the influence of these ethical constructs on two outcomes Operational AI Adoption and Systemic AI Adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-04T10:40:05Z)
• LLM Ethics Benchmark: A Three-Dimensional Assessment System for Evaluating Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models [8.018569128518187]
  This study establishes a novel framework for systematically evaluating the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>Our framework addresses this challenge by quantifying alignment with human ethical standards through three dimensions.<n>This approach enables precise identification of ethical strengths and weaknesses in LLMs, facilitating targeted improvements and stronger alignment with societal values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-01T20:36:19Z)
• Auditing the Ethical Logic of Generative AI Models [6.0972634521845475]
  This paper introduces a five-dimensional audit model to evaluate the ethical logic of leading large language models (LLMs)<n>We benchmark seven major LLMs finding that while models generally converge on ethical decisions, they vary in explanatory rigor and moral prioritization.<n>Chain-of-Thought prompting and reasoning-optimized models significantly enhance performance on our audit metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T13:32:30Z)
• Bridging the Gap: Integrating Ethics and Environmental Sustainability in AI Research and Practice [57.94036023167952]
  We argue that the efforts aiming to study AI's ethical ramifications should be made in tandem with those evaluating its impacts on the environment. We propose best practices to better integrate AI ethics and sustainability in AI research and practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T13:53:11Z)
• A Survey on Post-training of Large Language Models [185.51013463503946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have fundamentally transformed natural language processing, making them indispensable across domains ranging from conversational systems to scientific exploration.<n>These challenges necessitate advanced post-training language models (PoLMs) to address shortcomings, such as restricted reasoning capacities, ethical uncertainties, and suboptimal domain-specific performance.<n>This paper presents the first comprehensive survey of PoLMs, systematically tracing their evolution across five core paradigms: Fine-tuning, which enhances task-specific accuracy; Alignment, which ensures ethical coherence and alignment with human preferences; Reasoning, which advances multi-step inference despite challenges in reward design; Integration and Adaptation, which
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-08T05:41:42Z)
• Towards Developing Ethical Reasoners: Integrating Probabilistic Reasoning and Decision-Making for Complex AI Systems [4.854297874710511]
  A computational ethics framework is essential for AI and autonomous systems operating in complex, real-world environments.<n>Existing approaches often lack the adaptability needed to integrate ethical principles into dynamic and ambiguous contexts.<n>We outline the necessary ingredients for building a holistic, meta-level framework that combines intermediate representations, probabilistic reasoning, and knowledge representation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T17:25:11Z)
• Causality Is Key to Understand and Balance Multiple Goals in Trustworthy ML and Foundation Models [91.24296813969003]
  This paper advocates integrating causal methods into machine learning to navigate the trade-offs among key principles of trustworthy ML.<n>We argue that a causal approach is essential for balancing multiple competing objectives in both trustworthy ML and foundation models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-28T14:57:33Z)
• Diagnosing Moral Reasoning Acquisition in Language Models: Pragmatics and Generalization [9.650922370722476]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often fail to perform satisfactorily on tasks requiring moral cognizance.<n>Can current learning paradigms enable LLMs to acquire sufficient moral reasoning capabilities?<n>We show that performance improvements follow a mechanism similar to that of semantic-level tasks, and therefore remain affected by the pragmatic nature of latent morals in discourse.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-23T15:00:53Z)
• Addressing Moral Uncertainty using Large Language Models for Ethical Decision-Making [0.0]
  We present an ethical decision-making framework that refines a pre-trained reinforcement learning (RL) model using a task-agnostic ethical layer.<n>An ethical layer aggregates belief scores from multiple moral perspectives using Belief Jensen-Shannon Divergence and Dempster-Shafer Theory into probability scores that also serve as the shaping reward.<n>This integrated learning framework helps the RL agent navigate moral uncertainty in complex environments and enables it to make morally sound decisions across diverse tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T19:05:55Z)
• LogiDynamics: Unraveling the Dynamics of Logical Inference in Large Language Model Reasoning [49.58786377307728]
  This paper adopts an exploratory approach by introducing a controlled evaluation environment for analogical reasoning.<n>We analyze the comparative dynamics of inductive, abductive, and deductive inference pipelines.<n>We investigate advanced paradigms such as hypothesis selection, verification, and refinement, revealing their potential to scale up logical inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:54:53Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• A collection of principles for guiding and evaluating large language models [5.412690203810726]
  We identify and curate a list of 220 principles from literature, and derive a set of 37 core principles organized into seven categories. We conduct a small-scale expert survey, eliciting the subjective importance experts assign to different principles. We envision that the development of a shared model of principles can serve multiple purposes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T12:06:12Z)
• Unpacking the Ethical Value Alignment in Big Models [46.560886177083084]
  This paper provides an overview of the risks and challenges associated with big models, surveys existing AI ethics guidelines, and examines the ethical implications arising from the limitations of these models. We introduce a novel conceptual paradigm for aligning the ethical values of big models and discuss promising research directions for alignment criteria, evaluation, and method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T16:45:40Z)
• 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)
• Towards CausalGPT: A Multi-Agent Approach for Faithful Knowledge Reasoning via Promoting Causal Consistency in LLMs [55.66353783572259]
  Causal-Consistency Chain-of-Thought harnesses multi-agent collaboration to bolster the faithfulness and causality of foundation models.<n>Our framework demonstrates significant superiority over state-of-the-art methods through extensive and comprehensive evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-23T04:59:21Z)

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.