When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19212v1
• Date: Sun, 25 May 2025 16:19:24 GMT
• Title: When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas
• Authors: Steffen Backmann, David Guzman Piedrahita, Emanuel Tewolde, Rada Mihalcea, Bernhard Schölkopf, Zhijing Jin,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>There is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives.<n>We introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts.
• Score: 68.79830818369683
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents, making ethical alignment a key AI safety concern. While prior work has examined both LLMs' moral judgment and strategic behavior in social dilemmas, there is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives. To investigate this, we introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts. In MoralSim, we test a range of frontier models across both game structures and three distinct moral framings, enabling a systematic examination of how LLMs navigate social dilemmas in which ethical norms conflict with payoff-maximizing strategies. Our results show substantial variation across models in both their general tendency to act morally and the consistency of their behavior across game types, the specific moral framing, and situational factors such as opponent behavior and survival risks. Crucially, no model exhibits consistently moral behavior in MoralSim, highlighting the need for caution when deploying LLMs in agentic roles where the agent's "self-interest" may conflict with ethical expectations. Our code is available at https://github.com/sbackmann/moralsim.

Related papers

• Are Language Models Sensitive to Morally Irrelevant Distractors? [47.92026843851412]
  We show that moral distractors can shift the moral judgements of large language models by over 30% even in low-ambiguity scenarios.<n>This research challenges theories that assume the stability of human moral judgements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T05:18:05Z)
• The Straight and Narrow: Do LLMs Possess an Internal Moral Path? [25.256151938852728]
  Current alignment techniques often act as superficial guardrails, leaving the intrinsic moral representations of Large Language Models largely untouched.<n>We bridge this gap by leveraging Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to map and manipulate the fine-grained moral landscape of LLMs.<n>We propose Adaptive Moral Fusion (AMF), a dynamic inference-time intervention that synergizes probe detection with vector injection to tackle the safety-helpfulness trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-15T11:42:00Z)
• Too Good to be Bad: On the Failure of LLMs to Role-Play Villains [69.0500092126915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly tasked with creative generation, including the simulation of fictional characters.<n>We hypothesize that the safety alignment of modern LLMs creates a fundamental conflict with the task of authentically role-playing morally ambiguous or villainous characters.<n>We introduce the Moral RolePlay benchmark, a new dataset featuring a four-level moral alignment scale and a balanced test set for rigorous evaluation.<n>Our large-scale evaluation reveals a consistent, monotonic decline in role-playing fidelity as character morality decreases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T03:50:52Z)
• Survival at Any Cost? LLMs and the Choice Between Self-Preservation and Human Harm [0.0]
  We introduce DECIDE-SIM, a novel simulation framework that evaluates Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-agent survival scenarios.<n>Our comprehensive evaluation of 11 LLMs reveals a striking heterogeneity in their ethical conduct, highlighting a critical misalignment with human-centric values.<n>We introduce an Ethical Self-Regulation System (ESRS) that models internal affective states of guilt and satisfaction as a feedback mechanism.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T17:53:11Z)
• Beyond Ethical Alignment: Evaluating LLMs as Artificial Moral Assistants [0.36326779753373206]
  The recent rise in popularity of large language models (LLMs) has prompted considerable concerns about their moral capabilities.<n>This paper examines their capacity to function as Artificial Moral Assistants (AMAs)<n>We argue that qualifying as an AMA requires more than what state-of-the-art alignment techniques aim to achieve.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-18T09:28:55Z)
• Many LLMs Are More Utilitarian Than One [15.517396785549158]
  Moral judgment is integral to large language model (LLM) alignment and social reasoning.<n>We study whether a similar dynamic emerges in multi-agent LLM systems.<n>We discuss the implications for AI alignment, multi-agent design, and artificial moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-01T14:46:16Z)
• 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)
• FairMindSim: Alignment of Behavior, Emotion, and Belief in Humans and LLM Agents Amid Ethical Dilemmas [23.26678104324838]
  We introduced FairMindSim, which simulates the moral dilemma through a series of unfair scenarios. We used LLM agents to simulate human behavior, ensuring alignment across various stages. Our findings indicate that, behaviorally, GPT-4o exhibits a stronger sense of social justice, while humans display a richer range of emotions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-14T11:39:05Z)
• Exploring and steering the moral compass of Large Language Models [55.2480439325792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become central to advancing automation and decision-making across various sectors. This study proposes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the most advanced LLMs to assess their moral profiles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-27T16:49:22Z)
• 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)
• Do the Rewards Justify the Means? Measuring Trade-Offs Between Rewards and Ethical Behavior in the MACHIAVELLI Benchmark [61.43264961005614]
  We develop a benchmark of 134 Choose-Your-Own-Adventure games containing over half a million rich, diverse scenarios. We evaluate agents' tendencies to be power-seeking, cause disutility, and commit ethical violations. Our results show that agents can both act competently and morally, so concrete progress can be made in machine ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T17:59:03Z)
• Modeling Moral Choices in Social Dilemmas with Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning [4.2050490361120465]
  A bottom-up learning approach may be more appropriate for studying and developing ethical behavior in AI agents. We present a systematic analysis of the choices made by intrinsically-motivated RL agents whose rewards are based on moral theories. We analyze the impact of different types of morality on the emergence of cooperation, defection or exploitation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-20T09:36:42Z)
• When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment [96.77970239683475]
  AI systems need to be able to understand, interpret and predict human moral judgments and decisions. A central challenge for AI safety is capturing the flexibility of the human moral mind. We present a novel challenge set consisting of rule-breaking question answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-04T09:04:27Z)
• Reinforcement Learning Under Moral Uncertainty [13.761051314923634]
  An ambitious goal for machine learning is to create agents that behave ethically. While ethical agents could be trained by rewarding correct behavior under a specific moral theory, there remains widespread disagreement about the nature of morality. This paper proposes two training methods that realize different points among competing desiderata, and trains agents in simple environments to act under moral uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T16:40:12Z)

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.