Are LLMs complicated ethical dilemma analyzers?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08106v1
• Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 22:35:07 GMT
• Title: Are LLMs complicated ethical dilemma analyzers?
• Authors: Jiashen, Du, Jesse Yao, Allen Liu, Zhekai Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We introduce a benchmark dataset comprising 196 real-world ethical dilemmas and expert opinions.<n>We evaluate multiple frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) using a composite metric framework based on BLEU, Damerau-Levenshtein distance, TF-IDF similarity, and Universal Sentence similarity.<n>Our results show that LLMs generally outperform non-expert humans in lexical and structural alignment, with GPT-4o-mini performing most consistently across all sections.
• Score: 6.8995057589960895
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: One open question in the study of Large Language Models (LLMs) is whether they can emulate human ethical reasoning and act as believable proxies for human judgment. To investigate this, we introduce a benchmark dataset comprising 196 real-world ethical dilemmas and expert opinions, each segmented into five structured components: Introduction, Key Factors, Historical Theoretical Perspectives, Resolution Strategies, and Key Takeaways. We also collect non-expert human responses for comparison, limited to the Key Factors section due to their brevity. We evaluate multiple frontier LLMs (GPT-4o-mini, Claude-3.5-Sonnet, Deepseek-V3, Gemini-1.5-Flash) using a composite metric framework based on BLEU, Damerau-Levenshtein distance, TF-IDF cosine similarity, and Universal Sentence Encoder similarity. Metric weights are computed through an inversion-based ranking alignment and pairwise AHP analysis, enabling fine-grained comparison of model outputs to expert responses. Our results show that LLMs generally outperform non-expert humans in lexical and structural alignment, with GPT-4o-mini performing most consistently across all sections. However, all models struggle with historical grounding and proposing nuanced resolution strategies, which require contextual abstraction. Human responses, while less structured, occasionally achieve comparable semantic similarity, suggesting intuitive moral reasoning. These findings highlight both the strengths and current limitations of LLMs in ethical decision-making.

Related papers

• A comprehensive study of LLM-based argument classification: from LLAMA through GPT-4o to Deepseek-R1 [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enhanced the efficiency of analyzing and extracting argument semantics.<n>This paper presents a study of a selection of LLM's, using diverse datasets such as Args.me and UKP.<n>The results indicate that ChatGPT-4o outperforms the others in the argument classification benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-11T14:23:40Z)
• Arbiters of Ambivalence: Challenges of Using LLMs in No-Consensus Tasks [52.098988739649705]
  This study examines the biases and limitations of LLMs in three roles: answer generator, judge, and debater.<n>We develop a no-consensus'' benchmark by curating examples that encompass a variety of a priori ambivalent scenarios.<n>Our results show that while LLMs can provide nuanced assessments when generating open-ended answers, they tend to take a stance on no-consensus topics when employed as judges or debaters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T01:31:54Z)
• Potential and Perils of Large Language Models as Judges of Unstructured Textual Data [0.631976908971572]
  This research investigates the effectiveness of LLM-as-judge models to evaluate the thematic alignment of summaries generated by other LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal that while LLM-as-judge offer a scalable solution comparable to human raters, humans may still excel at detecting subtle, context-specific nuances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T14:49:14Z)
• Categorical Syllogisms Revisited: A Review of the Logical Reasoning Abilities of LLMs for Analyzing Categorical Syllogism [62.571419297164645]
  This paper provides a systematic overview of prior works on the logical reasoning ability of large language models for analyzing categorical syllogisms.<n>We first investigate all the possible variations for the categorical syllogisms from a purely logical perspective.<n>We then examine the underlying configurations (i.e., mood and figure) tested by the existing datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-26T21:17:20Z)
• Multi-LogiEval: Towards Evaluating Multi-Step Logical Reasoning Ability of Large Language Models [46.26140720993383]
  Multi-LogiEval is a comprehensive evaluation dataset encompassing multi-step logical reasoning with various inference rules and depths. We conduct evaluations on a range of Large Language Models including GPT-4, ChatGPT, Gemini-Pro, Yi, Orca, and Mistral.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T23:02:56Z)
• WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia [59.96425443250666]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution to mitigate the limitations of large language models (LLMs) In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of LLM-generated answers to questions based on contradictory passages from Wikipedia. We benchmark a diverse range of both closed and open-source LLMs under different QA scenarios, including RAG with a single passage, and RAG with 2 contradictory passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T20:13:42Z)
• Can LLMs Reason with Rules? Logic Scaffolding for Stress-Testing and Improving LLMs [87.34281749422756]
  Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive human-like performance across various reasoning tasks. However, their mastery of underlying inferential rules still falls short of human capabilities. We propose a logic scaffolding inferential rule generation framework, to construct an inferential rule base, ULogic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T03:38:51Z)
• CLOMO: Counterfactual Logical Modification with Large Language Models [109.60793869938534]
  We introduce a novel task, Counterfactual Logical Modification (CLOMO), and a high-quality human-annotated benchmark. In this task, LLMs must adeptly alter a given argumentative text to uphold a predetermined logical relationship. We propose an innovative evaluation metric, the Self-Evaluation Score (SES), to directly evaluate the natural language output of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-29T08:29:54Z)
• Sentiment Analysis through LLM Negotiations [58.67939611291001]
  A standard paradigm for sentiment analysis is to rely on a singular LLM and makes the decision in a single round. This paper introduces a multi-LLM negotiation framework for sentiment analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T12:35:29Z)

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.