Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI Interaction

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00078v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 03:16:41 GMT
• Title: Alignment Is Not Enough: A Relational Framework for Moral Standing in Human-AI Interaction
• Abstract summary: The question of whether artificial entities moral consideration has become one of the defining ethical challenges of AI research.<n>We introduce Relate, a framework that reframes AI moral patiency from ontological verification toward relational capacity and embodied interaction.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
• Abstract: The question of whether artificial entities deserve moral consideration has become one of the defining ethical challenges of AI research. Existing frameworks for moral patiency rely on verified ontological properties, such as sentience, phenomenal consciousness, or the capacity for suffering, that remain epistemically inaccessible in computational systems. This reliance creates a governance vacuum: millions of users form sustained affective bonds with conversational AI, yet no regulatory instrument distinguishes these interactions from transactional tool use. We introduce Relate (Relational Ethics for Leveled Assessment of Technological Entities), a framework that reframes AI moral patiency from ontological verification toward relational capacity and embodied interaction. Through a systematic comparison of seven governance frameworks, we demonstrate that current trustworthy AI instruments treat all human-AI encounters identically as tool use, ignoring the relational and embodied dynamics that posthumanist scholarship anticipated. We propose relational impact assessments, graduated moral consideration protocols, and interdisciplinary ethics integration as concrete instruments, and we include a sample Relational Impact Assessment applied to a deployed companion AI system. We do not claim current AI systems are conscious. We demonstrate that the ethical vocabularies governing them are inadequate to the embodied, relational realities these systems produce.

Related papers

• The Algorithmic Blind Spot: Bias, Moral Status, and the Future of Robot Rights [0.0]
  We argue that disproportionate ethical investment in speculative future artificial agents marginalizes empirically documented and asymmetrically distributed harms affecting human populations.<n>We argue that addressing the algorithmic blind spot requires re-centering ethical evaluation on human impacts, institutional responsibility, and the governance of algorithmic systems currently in operation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-10T21:33:28Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• Ethical AI: Towards Defining a Collective Evaluation Framework [0.3413711585591077]
  Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming sectors such as healthcare, finance, and autonomous systems.<n>Yet its rapid integration raises urgent ethical concerns related to data ownership, privacy, and systemic bias.<n>This article proposes a modular ethical assessment framework built on ontological blocks of meaning-discrete, interpretable units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T21:10:47Z)
• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Relationship between Agency, Autonomy, and Moral Patiency [0.0]
  We argue that while current AI systems are highly sophisticated, they lack genuine agency and autonomy.<n>We do not rule out the possibility of future systems that could achieve a limited form of artificial moral agency without consciousness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-11T03:48:40Z)
• Deontic Temporal Logic for Formal Verification of AI Ethics [4.028503203417233]
  This paper proposes a formalization based on deontic logic to define and evaluate the ethical behavior of AI systems.<n>It introduces axioms and theorems to capture ethical requirements related to fairness and explainability.<n>The authors evaluate the effectiveness of this formalization by assessing the ethics of the real-world COMPAS and loan prediction AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T07:48:40Z)
• 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)
• Beneficent Intelligence: A Capability Approach to Modeling Benefit, Assistance, and Associated Moral Failures through AI Systems [12.239090962956043]
  The prevailing discourse around AI ethics lacks the language and formalism necessary to capture the diverse ethical concerns that emerge when AI systems interact with individuals. We present a framework formalizing a network of ethical concepts and entitlements necessary for AI systems to confer meaningful benefit or assistance to stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-01T22:38:14Z)
• Fairness in Agreement With European Values: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on AI Regulation [61.77881142275982]
  This interdisciplinary position paper considers various concerns surrounding fairness and discrimination in AI, and discusses how AI regulations address them. We first look at AI and fairness through the lenses of law, (AI) industry, sociotechnology, and (moral) philosophy, and present various perspectives. We identify and propose the roles AI Regulation should take to make the endeavor of the AI Act a success in terms of AI fairness concerns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-08T12:32:08Z)
• 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)
• Trustworthy AI: From Principles to Practices [44.67324097900778]
  Many current AI systems were found vulnerable to imperceptible attacks, biased against underrepresented groups, lacking in user privacy protection, etc. In this review, we strive to provide AI practitioners a comprehensive guide towards building trustworthy AI systems. To unify the current fragmented approaches towards trustworthy AI, we propose a systematic approach that considers the entire lifecycle of AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-04T03:20:39Z)
• An interdisciplinary conceptual study of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for helping benefit-risk assessment practices: Towards a comprehensive qualification matrix of AI programs and devices (pre-print 2020) [55.41644538483948]
  This paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of existing concepts coming from different disciplines tackling the notion of intelligence. The aim is to identify shared notions or discrepancies to consider for qualifying AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-07T12:01:31Z)

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.