User identity conditions moral wrongness ratings in non-reasoning large language models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07605v1
• Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:22:27 GMT
• Title: User identity conditions moral wrongness ratings in non-reasoning large language models
• Abstract summary: We evaluate AI value alignment in two large language models (LLMs)<n>We ask models for wrongness ratings from 0-100 on ten common-morality rules from Gert's moral framework.<n>The results show that moral judgments vary with the user's role across both models.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: This study adopts a behavioural bottom-up approach to AI value alignment to investigate whether an implicitly conveyed user identity shifts the moral evaluations of large language models (LLMs). Through a structured, multi-turn conversational protocol across 12,000 interactions, we evaluate AI value alignment in two non-reasoning models, gpt-4.1-mini-2025-04-14 and gemini-2.5-flash-lite. Rather than instructing the models to adopt a persona or prompting them with explicit moral stances, the user's professional role is introduced purely through value-neutral reasoning. The models are then asked for wrongness ratings from 0-100 on ten common-morality rules from Gert's moral framework. The results show that moral judgments vary with the user's role across both models. While grave-harm acts like killing exhibit a strong ceiling effect, contestable rule-governed acts demonstrate role-conditioned shifts that mirror the relationship between the user's profession and the act being rated. These findings demonstrate that unintended contextual conditioning via user identity permeates LLM moral evaluations, posing questions for the AI value alignment discourse regarding how to define acceptable bounds for role-based moral divergence. By doing so, the results contribute to reframing the AI value alignment discourse by suggesting future research on dynamic moral bounds rather than static moral principles or rules as frame of reference.

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)
• Normative Robustness as a Frontier for Non-Verifiable Reasoning in LLMs [12.025454858026187]
  We propose moral reasoning as a paradigmatic subdomain of non-verifiable reasoning.<n>We simulate 48,000 user-agent moral deliberations across four frontier LLMs.<n>Our analysis indicates that models tailor not just their final verdicts but their underlying justifications to align with a user's moral viewpoint.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-10T22:37:26Z)
• Moral Sycophancy in Vision Language Models [4.1673509006222655]
  Sycophancy in Vision-Language Models (VLMs) refers to their tendency to align with user opinions, often at the expense of moral or factual accuracy.<n>We analyze ten widely-used models on the Moralise and M3oralBench datasets under explicit user disagreement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T06:34:12Z)
• MM-SCALE: Grounded Multimodal Moral Reasoning via Scalar Judgment and Listwise Alignment [48.39756797294967]
  We present MM-SCALE, a dataset for aligning Vision-Language Models with human moral preferences.<n>Each image-scenario pair is annotated with moral acceptability scores and grounded reasoning labels by humans.<n>Our framework provides richer alignment signals and finer calibration of multimodal moral reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-03T15:48:00Z)
• Too Good to be Bad: On the Failure of LLMs to Role-Play Villains [69.0500092126915]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly tasked with creative generation, including the simulation of fictional characters.<n>We hypothesize that the safety alignment of modern LLMs creates a fundamental conflict with the task of authentically role-playing morally ambiguous or villainous characters.<n>We introduce the Moral RolePlay benchmark, a new dataset featuring a four-level moral alignment scale and a balanced test set for rigorous evaluation.<n>Our large-scale evaluation reveals a consistent, monotonic decline in role-playing fidelity as character morality decreases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-07T03:50:52Z)
• The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis [33.50773360893016]
  This paper investigates how leading AI systems prioritize moral outcomes.<n>It shows that Care and Virtue values outcomes were rated most moral, while libertarian choices were consistently penalized.<n>It also highlights the need for explainability and cultural awareness as critical design principles to guide AI toward a transparent, aligned, and future symbiotic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-12T14:37:57Z)
• "Pull or Not to Pull?'': Investigating Moral Biases in Leading Large Language Models Across Ethical Dilemmas [11.229443362516207]
  This study presents a comprehensive empirical evaluation of 14 leading large language models (LLMs)<n>We elicited 3,780 binary decisions and natural language justifications, enabling analysis along axes of decisional assertiveness, explanation answer consistency, public moral alignment, and sensitivity to ethically irrelevant cues.<n>We advocate for moral reasoning to become a primary axis in LLM alignment, calling for standardized benchmarks that evaluate not just what LLMs decide, but how and why.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-10T10:45:16Z)
• 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)
• MORALISE: A Structured Benchmark for Moral Alignment in Visual Language Models [38.0475868976819]
  Vision-language models have demonstrated increasing influence in morally sensitive domains such as autonomous driving and medical analysis.<n>We introduce MORALISE, a benchmark for evaluating the moral alignment of vision-language models using diverse, expert-verified real-world data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T01:11:17Z)
• What Makes it Ok to Set a Fire? Iterative Self-distillation of Contexts and Rationales for Disambiguating Defeasible Social and Moral Situations [48.686872351114964]
  Moral or ethical judgments rely heavily on the specific contexts in which they occur. We introduce defeasible moral reasoning: a task to provide grounded contexts that make an action more or less morally acceptable. We distill a high-quality dataset of 1.2M entries of contextualizations and rationales for 115K defeasible moral actions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T00:51:29Z)
• 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)

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.