Pragmatic Inference for Moral Reasoning Acquisition: Generalization via Distributional Semantics

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.24102v1
• Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2025 22:40:58 GMT
• Title: Pragmatic Inference for Moral Reasoning Acquisition: Generalization via Distributional Semantics
• Authors: Guangliang Liu, Xi Chen, Bocheng Chen, Xitong Zhang, Kristen Johnson,
• Abstract summary: Moral reasoning has emerged as a promising research direction for Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This paper investigates how LLMs can achieve generalized moral reasoning despite their reliance on distributional semantics.
• Score: 9.209639324860207
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Moral reasoning has emerged as a promising research direction for Large Language Models (LLMs), yet achieving generalization remains a central challenge. From a linguistic standpoint, this difficulty arises because LLMs are adept at capturing distributional semantics, which fundamentally differs from the morals which operate at the pragmatic level. This paper investigates how LLMs can achieve generalized moral reasoning despite their reliance on distributional semantics. We propose pragmatic inference methods grounded in moral foundations theory, which leverage contextual information at each step to bridge the pragmatic gap and guide LLMs in connecting moral foundations with moral reasoning objectives. Experimental results demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances LLMs' generalization in moral reasoning, providing a foundation for future research grounded in moral foundations theory.

Related papers

• Towards Generalizable Reasoning: Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization for LLM Reasoning [50.352417879912515]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities.<n>We propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns.<n>We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-06T08:03:11Z)
• Learning to Diagnose and Correct Moral Errors: Towards Enhancing Moral Sensitivity in Large Language Models [8.691489065712316]
  We propose two pragmatic inference methods that faciliate LLMs to diagnose morally benign and hazardous input and correct moral errors.<n>A central strength of our pragmatic inference methods is their unified perspective for designing pragmatic inference procedures grounded in their inferential loads.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T15:09:05Z)
• MoralReason: Generalizable Moral Decision Alignment For LLM Agents Using Reasoning-Level Reinforcement Learning [7.764532811300023]
  We introduce Moral-Reason-QA, a dataset extending 680 human-annotated, high-ambiguity moral scenarios with framework-specific reasoning traces.<n>Our learning approach employs Group Relative Policy Optimization with composite rewards that simultaneously optimize decision alignment and framework-specific reasoning processes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-15T15:52:10Z)
• 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)
• From Stability to Inconsistency: A Study of Moral Preferences in LLMs [4.12484724941528]
  We introduce a Moral Foundations LLM dataset (MFD-LLM) grounded in Moral Foundations Theory.<n>We propose a novel evaluation method that captures the full spectrum of LLMs' revealed moral preferences by answering a range of real-world moral dilemmas.<n>Our findings reveal that state-of-the-art models have remarkably homogeneous value preferences, yet demonstrate a lack of consistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-08T11:52:50Z)
• 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)
• LogiDynamics: Unraveling the Dynamics of Inductive, Abductive and Deductive Logical Inferences in LLM Reasoning [74.0242521818214]
  This paper systematically investigates the comparative dynamics of inductive (System 1) versus abductive/deductive (System 2) inference in large language models (LLMs)<n>We utilize a controlled analogical reasoning environment, varying modality (textual, visual, symbolic), difficulty, and task format (MCQ / free-text)<n>Our analysis reveals System 2 pipelines generally excel, particularly in visual/symbolic modalities and harder tasks, while System 1 is competitive for textual and easier problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-16T15:54:53Z)
• M$^3$oralBench: A MultiModal Moral Benchmark for LVLMs [66.78407469042642]
  We introduce M$3$oralBench, the first MultiModal Moral Benchmark for LVLMs.<n>M$3$oralBench expands the everyday moral scenarios in Moral Foundations Vignettes (MFVs) and employs the text-to-image diffusion model, SD3.0, to create corresponding scenario images.<n>It conducts moral evaluation across six moral foundations of Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and encompasses tasks in moral judgement, moral classification, and moral response.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T05:18:55Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Large Language Models are In-Context Semantic Reasoners rather than Symbolic Reasoners [75.85554779782048]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have excited the natural language and machine learning community over recent years. Despite of numerous successful applications, the underlying mechanism of such in-context capabilities still remains unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that the learned textitsemantics of language tokens do the most heavy lifting during the reasoning process.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T07:33:34Z)

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.