Differences in the Moral Foundations of Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.11790v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 18:21:22 GMT
• Title: Differences in the Moral Foundations of Large Language Models
• Authors: Peter Kirgis,
• Abstract summary: I perform a synthetic experiment on a wide range of models using Jonathan Haidt's influential moral foundations theory (MFT)<n>I document the bias and variance of large language model responses relative to a human baseline in the original survey.<n>My results suggest that models rely on different moral foundations from one another and from a nationally representative human baseline, and these differences increase as model capabilities increase.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly being used in critical domains of politics, business, and education, but the nature of their normative ethical judgment remains opaque. Alignment research has, to date, not sufficiently utilized perspectives and insights from the field of moral psychology to inform training and evaluation of frontier models. I perform a synthetic experiment on a wide range of models from most major model providers using Jonathan Haidt's influential moral foundations theory (MFT) to elicit diverse value judgments from LLMs. Using multiple descriptive statistical approaches, I document the bias and variance of large language model responses relative to a human baseline in the original survey. My results suggest that models rely on different moral foundations from one another and from a nationally representative human baseline, and these differences increase as model capabilities increase. This work seeks to spur further analysis of LLMs using MFT, including finetuning of open-source models, and greater deliberation by policymakers on the importance of moral foundations for LLM alignment.

Related papers

• Large Language Model Sourcing: A Survey [84.63438376832471]
  Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized artificial intelligence, shifting from supporting objective tasks to empowering subjective decision-making.<n>Due to the black-box nature of LLMs and the human-like quality of their generated content, issues such as hallucinations, bias, unfairness, and copyright infringement become significant.<n>This survey presents a systematic investigation into provenance tracking for content generated by LLMs, organized around four interrelated dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T10:52:30Z)
• A Survey on Mechanistic Interpretability for Multi-Modal Foundation Models [74.48084001058672]
  The rise of foundation models has transformed machine learning research.<n> multimodal foundation models (MMFMs) pose unique interpretability challenges beyond unimodal frameworks.<n>This survey explores two key aspects: (1) the adaptation of LLM interpretability methods to multimodal models and (2) understanding the mechanistic differences between unimodal language models and crossmodal systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T20:55:26Z)
• Normative Evaluation of Large Language Models with Everyday Moral Dilemmas [0.0]
  We evaluate large language models (LLMs) on complex, everyday moral dilemmas sourced from the "Am I the Asshole" (AITA) community on Reddit.<n>Our results demonstrate that large language models exhibit distinct patterns of moral judgment, varying substantially from human evaluations on the AITA subreddit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T01:29:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Large-scale moral machine experiment on large language models [0.0]
  We evaluate moral judgments across 52 different Large Language Models (LLMs) in autonomous driving scenarios.<n> proprietary models and open-source models exceeding 10 billion parameters demonstrated relatively close alignment with human judgments.<n>However, model updates did not consistently improve alignment with human preferences, and many LLMs showed excessive emphasis on specific ethical principles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-11T08:36:49Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect the Ideology of their Creators [71.65505524599888]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on vast amounts of data to generate natural language.<n>This paper shows that the ideological stance of an LLM appears to reflect the worldview of its creators.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T04:02:30Z)
• A Survey on Human Preference Learning for Large Language Models [81.41868485811625]
  The recent surge of versatile large language models (LLMs) largely depends on aligning increasingly capable foundation models with human intentions by preference learning. This survey covers the sources and formats of preference feedback, the modeling and usage of preference signals, as well as the evaluation of the aligned LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T03:52:51Z)
• MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs [34.43699121838648]
  This paper introduces a novel benchmark designed to measure and compare the moral reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs)<n>We present the first comprehensive dataset specifically curated to probe the moral dimensions of LLM outputs.<n>Our methodology involves a multi-faceted approach, combining quantitative analysis with qualitative insights from ethics scholars to ensure a thorough evaluation of model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T18:15:01Z)
• 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)

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.