Contesting Artificial Moral Agents

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00066v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 16:38:45 GMT
• Title: Contesting Artificial Moral Agents
• Abstract summary: This paper proposes a 5E framework for contesting Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs) based on five grounds: ethical, explainable, empirical, and evaluative.<n>The framework contributes a provisional timeline that indicates where developers of AMA technologies may anticipate contestation, or may self-contest in order to adhere to value-aligned development of truly moral AI systems.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: There has been much discourse on the ethics of AI, to the extent that there are now systems that possess inherent moral reasoning. Such machines are now formally known as Artificial Moral Agents or AMAs. However, there is a requirement for a dedicated framework that can contest the morality of these systems. This paper proposes a 5E framework for contesting AMAs based on five grounds: ethical, epistemological, explainable, empirical, and evaluative. It further includes the spheres of ethical influences at individual, local, societal, and global levels. Lastly, the framework contributes a provisional timeline that indicates where developers of AMA technologies may anticipate contestation, or may self-contest in order to adhere to value-aligned development of truly moral AI systems.

Related papers

• From Values to Frameworks: A Qualitative Study of Ethical Reasoning in Agentic AI Practitioners [0.0]
  Agentic artificial intelligence systems are autonomous technologies capable of pursuing complex goals with minimal human oversight.<n>While these systems promise major gains in productivity, they also raise new ethical challenges.<n>This paper investigates the ethical reasoning of AI practitioners through qualitative interviews centered on structured dilemmas in agentic AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T00:58:41Z)
• 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)
• Moral Responsibility or Obedience: What Do We Want from AI? [0.0]
  This paper examines recent safety testing incidents involving large language models (LLMs) that appeared to disobey shutdown commands or engage in ethically ambiguous or illicit behavior.<n>I argue that such behavior should not be interpreted as rogue or misaligned, but as early evidence of emerging ethical reasoning in agentic AI.<n>I call for a shift in AI safety evaluation: away from rigid obedience and toward frameworks that can assess ethical judgment in systems capable of navigating moral dilemmas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-03T16:53:01Z)
• Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground [51.85131234265026]
  I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms.<n>I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:36:13Z)
• Hybrid Approaches for Moral Value Alignment in AI Agents: a Manifesto [3.7414804164475983]
  Increasing interest in ensuring the safety of next-generation Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems calls for novel approaches to embedding morality into autonomous agents.<n>We provide a systematization of existing approaches to the problem of introducing morality in machines - modelled as a continuum.<n>We argue that more hybrid solutions are needed to create adaptable and robust, yet controllable and interpretable agentic systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T11:46:34Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• AiSocrates: Towards Answering Ethical Quandary Questions [51.53350252548668]
  AiSocrates is a system for deliberative exchange of different perspectives to an ethical quandary. We show that AiSocrates generates promising answers to ethical quandary questions with multiple perspectives. We argue that AiSocrates is a promising step toward developing an NLP system that incorporates human values explicitly by prompt instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-12T09:52:59Z)
• 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)
• Descriptive AI Ethics: Collecting and Understanding the Public Opinion [10.26464021472619]
  This work proposes a mixed AI ethics model that allows normative and descriptive research to complement each other. We discuss its implications on bridging the gap between optimistic and pessimistic views towards AI systems' deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-15T03:46:27Z)
• Aligning AI With Shared Human Values [85.2824609130584]
  We introduce the ETHICS dataset, a new benchmark that spans concepts in justice, well-being, duties, virtues, and commonsense morality. We find that current language models have a promising but incomplete ability to predict basic human ethical judgements. Our work shows that progress can be made on machine ethics today, and it provides a steppingstone toward AI that is aligned with human values.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-05T17:59:16Z)

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.