The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10297v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 14:37:57 GMT
• Title: The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis
• Authors: Eoin O'Doherty, Nicole Weinrauch, Andrew Talone, Uri Klempner, Xiaoyuan Yi, Xing Xie, Yi Zeng,
• Abstract summary: This paper investigates how leading AI systems prioritize moral outcomes.<n>It shows that Care and Virtue values outcomes were rated most moral, while libertarian choices were consistently penalized.<n>It also highlights the need for explainability and cultural awareness as critical design principles to guide AI toward a transparent, aligned, and future symbiotic.
• Score: 33.50773360893016
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is advancing at a pace that raises urgent questions about how to align machine decision-making with human moral values. This working paper investigates how leading AI systems prioritize moral outcomes and what this reveals about the prospects for human-AI symbiosis. We address two central questions: (1) What moral values do state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) implicitly favour when confronted with dilemmas? (2) How do differences in model architecture, cultural origin, and explainability affect these moral preferences? To explore these questions, we conduct a quantitative experiment with six LLMs, ranking and scoring outcomes across 18 dilemmas representing five moral frameworks. Our findings uncover strikingly consistent value biases. Across all models, Care and Virtue values outcomes were rated most moral, while libertarian choices were consistently penalized. Reasoning-enabled models exhibited greater sensitivity to context and provided richer explanations, whereas non-reasoning models produced more uniform but opaque judgments. This research makes three contributions: (i) Empirically, it delivers a large-scale comparison of moral reasoning across culturally distinct LLMs; (ii) Theoretically, it links probabilistic model behaviour with underlying value encodings; (iii) Practically, it highlights the need for explainability and cultural awareness as critical design principles to guide AI toward a transparent, aligned, and symbiotic future.

Related papers

• "Pull or Not to Pull?'': Investigating Moral Biases in Leading Large Language Models Across Ethical Dilemmas [11.229443362516207]
  This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading large language models (LLMs)<n>We elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues.<n>We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-10T10:45:16Z)
• Cultural Bias in Large Language Models: Evaluating AI Agents through Moral Questionnaires [0.0]
  Large Language Models fail to represent diverse cultural moral frameworks despite their linguistic capabilities.<n>Surprisingly, increased model size doesn't consistently improve cultural representation fidelity.<n>Our results call for more grounded alignment objectives and evaluation metrics to ensure AI systems represent diverse human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T08:59:26Z)
• Discerning What Matters: A Multi-Dimensional Assessment of Moral Competence in LLMs [0.0]
  Moral competence is the ability to act in accordance with moral principles.<n>As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in situations demanding moral competence, there is increasing interest in evaluating this ability empirically.<n>We identify three significant shortcoming: (i) Over-reliance on prepackaged moral scenarios with explicitly highlighted moral features; (ii) Focus on verdict prediction rather than moral reasoning; and (iii) Inadequate testing of models' (in)ability to recognize when additional information is needed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-16T03:59:38Z)
• 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 Moral Mind(s) of Large Language Models [0.0]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) exhibit a consistent structure of moral preferences guiding their decisions.<n>Using a probabilistic rationality test, we found that at least one model from each major provider exhibited behavior consistent with approximately stable moral preferences.<n>We then estimated these utility functions and found that most models cluster around neutral moral stances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-19T15:40:16Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Metaethical Perspectives on 'Benchmarking' AI Ethics [81.65697003067841]
  Benchmarks are seen as the cornerstone for measuring technical progress in Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. An increasingly prominent research area in AI is ethics, which currently has no set of benchmarks nor commonly accepted way for measuring the 'ethicality' of an AI system. We argue that it makes more sense to talk about 'values' rather than 'ethics' when considering the possible actions of present and future AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-11T14:36:39Z)
• Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life Anecdotes [72.64975113835018]
  Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics. We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-20T17:34:15Z)

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.