The Ethical Knowledge Gap: Dispersed Knowledge, Sensemaking Failures, and Epistemic Dependence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24160v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:16:16 GMT
• Title: The Ethical Knowledge Gap: Dispersed Knowledge, Sensemaking Failures, and Epistemic Dependence
• Abstract summary: This paper argues that the persistent gap between ethical intention and ethical implementation is a structural condition.<n>Ethical software development remains stubbornly difficult despite two decades of normative frameworks, professional codes, and participatory methodologies.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Ethical software development remains stubbornly difficult despite two decades of normative frameworks, professional codes, and participatory methodologies. This paper offers a diagnostic rather than prescriptive contribution: it argues that the persistent gap between ethical intention and ethical implementation is a structural epistemic condition, not primarily a failure of will, education, or normative guidance. Three independently sufficient mechanisms interact to produce what I call the ethical knowledge gap -- a condition in which the knowledge required for ethically informed decision-making is systematically unavailable at the point of decision, even when the organization as a whole possesses it. First, drawing on Hayek's (1945) analysis of dispersed knowledge and its organizational extensions, the paper establishes that ethically relevant knowledge in software development is constitutively distributed across roles, largely tacit, and -- unlike efficiency-related knowledge -- unsupported by any spontaneous aggregation mechanism analogous to the price system. Second, an interpretive deficit, analyzed through Weick's sensemaking framework and the literature on framing and epistemic cultures, renders developers unable to recognize the ethical significance of what they know: the sensemaking apparatus of engineering culture makes technical decisions intelligible while systematically obscuring their ethical dimensions. Third, a credibility attenuation, analyzed through the social epistemology of testimony and epistemic dependence, discounts developers' observations as they cross organizational role boundaries, so that hybrid judgments combining technical detail with ethical assessment lose their epistemic force.

Related papers

• Beyond the Algorithm: Professional Experiences and Perceptions of AI Bias [0.0]
  The purpose of this study was to examine how social bias emerges, is perceived, and can be mitigated within artificial intelligence and machine learning systems.<n>The study focused on the lived experiences and professional insights of AI practitioners rather than sector-specific populations.<n>Findings showed that algorithmic bias arises from historical inequities, exclusionary design assumptions, and organizational pressures that prioritize speed and efficiency over ethical reflection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-13T00:59:17Z)
• Understanding: reframing automation and assurance [0.0]
  Safety and assurance cases risk becoming detached from the understanding needed for responsible engineering and governance decisions.<n>We argue that understanding should become an explicit, assessable, and defensible component of decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T10:04:26Z)
• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• 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)
• AI Deception: Risks, Dynamics, and Controls [153.71048309527225]
  This project provides a comprehensive and up-to-date overview of the AI deception field.<n>We identify a formal definition of AI deception, grounded in signaling theory from studies of animal deception.<n>We organize the landscape of AI deception research as a deception cycle, consisting of two key components: deception emergence and deception treatment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T16:56:04Z)
• EthicsMH: A Pilot Benchmark for Ethical Reasoning in Mental Health AI [0.2538209532048867]
  This dataset is a pilot dataset of 125 scenarios designed to evaluate how AI systems navigate ethically charged situations.<n>EthicsMH establishes a task framework that bridges AI ethics and mental health decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T07:35:35Z)
• 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)
• Causal Fairness Analysis [68.12191782657437]
  We introduce a framework for understanding, modeling, and possibly solving issues of fairness in decision-making settings. The main insight of our approach will be to link the quantification of the disparities present on the observed data with the underlying, and often unobserved, collection of causal mechanisms. Our effort culminates in the Fairness Map, which is the first systematic attempt to organize and explain the relationship between different criteria found in the literature.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-23T01:06:34Z)
• An Ecosystem Approach to Ethical AI and Data Use: Experimental Reflections [0.0]
  This paper offers a methodology to identify the needs of AI practitioners when it comes to confronting and resolving ethical challenges. We offer a grassroots approach to operational ethics based on dialog and mutualised responsibility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-27T07:41:26Z)
• Neuro-symbolic Architectures for Context Understanding [59.899606495602406]
  We propose the use of hybrid AI methodology as a framework for combining the strengths of data-driven and knowledge-driven approaches. Specifically, we inherit the concept of neuro-symbolism as a way of using knowledge-bases to guide the learning progress of deep neural networks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-09T15:04:07Z)
• On Consequentialism and Fairness [64.35872952140677]
  We provide a consequentialist critique of common definitions of fairness within machine learning. We conclude with a broader discussion of the issues of learning and randomization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-01-02T05:39:48Z)

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.