Formalizing Kantian Ethics: Formula of the Universal Law Logic (FULL)

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.14254v1
• Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:30:40 GMT
• Title: Formalizing Kantian Ethics: Formula of the Universal Law Logic (FULL)
• Abstract summary: The field of machine ethics aims to build Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs) to better understand morality and make AI agents safer.<n>Many approaches encode human moral intuition as a set of axioms on actions e.g., do not harm, you must help others.<n>This paper explores formalizing a moral procedure that formalizes these two limitations.
• Score: 4.111899441919164
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The field of machine ethics aims to build Artificial Moral Agents (AMAs) to better understand morality and make AI agents safer. To do so, many approaches encode human moral intuition as a set of axioms on actions e.g., do not harm, you must help others. However, this introduces (at least) two limitations for future AMAs. First, it does not consider the agent's purposes in performing the action. Second, it assumes that we humans can enumerate our moral intuition. This paper explores formalizing a moral procedure that alleviates these two limitations. We specifically consider Kantian ethics and present a multi-sorted quantified modal logic we call the Formula of the Universal Law Logic (FULL). The FULL formalizes Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative, the Formula of the Universal Law (FUL), and concepts such as causality and agency. We demonstrate on three cases from Kantian ethics that the FULL can reason to evaluate agents' actions for certain purposes without built-in moral intuition, given that it has sufficient (non-normative) background knowledge. Therefore, the FULL is a contribution towards more robust and autonomous AMAs, and a more formal understanding of Kantian ethics.

Related papers

• How do LLMs Evaluate Perceived Moral Agency? Investigating Moral Decision-Making in Human-Artificial Agents Interactions [66.41429744325532]
  Humans possess moral agency, the capacity to make ethically guided decisions and bear responsibility for their consequences.<n>As artificial agents (AAs) such as robots, drones, and disembodied AI systems become embedded in smart city environments, the question of whether and how moral agency is attributed to them takes on new urgency.<n>This paper presents, to the best of our knowledge, the first empirical study comparing how humans and LLMs evaluate perceived moral agency (PMA) across human and autonomous artificial agents varying in embodiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T11:56:59Z)
• MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes [31.1183238867944]
  We present MoReBench: 1,000 moral scenarios, each paired with a set of criteria experts consider essential to include (or avoid) when reasoning about the scenarios.<n>MoReBench contains over 23 thousand criteria including identifying moral considerations, weighing trade-offs, and giving actionable recommendations.<n>Separately, we curate MoReBench-Theory: 150 examples to test whether AI can reason under five major frameworks in normative ethics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T07:34:31Z)
• Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners? [75.6788742799773]
  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)
• When Ethics and Payoffs Diverge: LLM Agents in Morally Charged Social Dilemmas [68.79830818369683]
  Large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled their use in complex agentic roles, involving decision-making with humans or other agents.<n>There is limited understanding of how they act when moral imperatives directly conflict with rewards or incentives.<n>We introduce Moral Behavior in Social Dilemma Simulation (MoralSim) and evaluate how LLMs behave in the prisoner's dilemma and public goods game with morally charged contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-25T16:19:24Z)
• If our aim is to build morality into an artificial agent, how might we begin to go about doing so? [0.0]
  We discuss the different aspects that should be considered when building moral agents, including the most relevant moral paradigms and challenges. We propose solutions including a hybrid approach to design and a hierarchical approach to combining moral paradigms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T12:56:12Z)
• 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)
• ClarifyDelphi: Reinforced Clarification Questions with Defeasibility Rewards for Social and Moral Situations [81.70195684646681]
  We present ClarifyDelphi, an interactive system that learns to ask clarification questions. We posit that questions whose potential answers lead to diverging moral judgments are the most informative. Our work is ultimately inspired by studies in cognitive science that have investigated the flexibility in moral cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-20T16:33:09Z)
• 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)
• Automated Kantian Ethics: A Faithful Implementation [0.0]
  I present an implementation of automated Kantian ethics that is faithful to the Kantian philosophical tradition. I formalize Kant's categorical imperative in Dyadic Deontic Logic, implement this formalization in the Isabelle theorem prover, and develop a testing framework to evaluate how well my implementation coheres with expected properties of Kantian ethic. My system is an early step towards philosophically mature ethical AI agents and it can make nuanced judgements in complex ethical dilemmas because it is grounded in philosophical literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-20T19:09:15Z)
• Reinforcement Learning Under Moral Uncertainty [13.761051314923634]
  An ambitious goal for machine learning is to create agents that behave ethically. While ethical agents could be trained by rewarding correct behavior under a specific moral theory, there remains widespread disagreement about the nature of morality. This paper proposes two training methods that realize different points among competing desiderata, and trains agents in simple environments to act under moral uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-08T16:40:12Z)
• Toward equipping Artificial Moral Agents with multiple ethical theories [1.5736899098702972]
  Artificial Moral Agents (AMA's) is a field in computer science with the purpose of creating autonomous machines that can make moral decisions akin to how humans do. Research and design has been done with either none or at most one specified normative ethical theory as basis. This is problematic because it narrows down the AMA's functional ability and versatility which in turn causes moral outcomes that a limited number of people agree with. We design a three-layer model for general normative ethical theories that can be used to serialise the ethical views of people and businesses for an AMA to use during reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-02T14:33:22Z)

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.