A Contractualist Argumentation Framework for Moral Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.01937v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 09:10:22 GMT
• Title: A Contractualist Argumentation Framework for Moral Decision-Making
• Abstract summary: We propose a formal framework for moral decision-making grounded in Scanlon's contractualism.<n>We use ASPIC+, a structured argumentation framework, extended with value-based filtering to model how each agent's values determine which reasons are morally relevant.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Autonomous agents operating in shared environments must make decisions that affect multiple individuals with potentially conflicting interests. We propose a formal framework for moral decision-making grounded in Scanlon's contractualism, an ethical theory that evaluates the permissibility of actions in terms of principles that no one could reasonably reject. To operationalise contractualist reasoning, we use ASPIC+, a structured argumentation framework, extended with value-based filtering to model how each agent's values determine which reasons are morally relevant in the first place. The result is a Contractualist Argumentation Framework in which agents' reasons are formally represented, compared, and evaluated through argumentation semantics. We illustrate the approach through a worked example in a domestic setting and discuss its relation to existing value-based argumentation approaches.

Related papers

• Measuring AI Accountability Through Argumentation Analysis: Can Model Reasoning Withstand Scrutiny? [0.0]
  We investigate an alternative standard designed to function despite realistic ambiguity.<n>We use a four-phase dialectical protocol grounded in Walton's theory of argumentation schemes and Govier's criteria for argument cogency.<n>It is adaptive to different frames of reasoning, extends beyond multiple-choice framing, and treats both the reasoning that precedes a verdict and its post-hoc justification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-04T12:40:39Z)
• A Minimal $κ$--$τ$ Logic for Risk-Sensitive Abduction [0.0]
  This paper argues that in risk-sensitive domains, the timing of commitment is itself a governed decision.<n>We present a minimal $$--$$ logical framework built on two primitives.<n>The framework provides formal machinery for domains in which the distinction between highly likely and commit-worthy is operationally consequential.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:35:32Z)
• A causal modeling perspective on decision theory [0.0]
  We introduce a formal framework for decision theory based on nonparametric structural equation models (NPSEMs)<n>We propose a novel decision theory - personal decision theory - which instructs agents to maximize a subjective model of their own counterfactual utility.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-29T07:48:22Z)
• fEDM+: A Risk-Based Fuzzy Ethical Decision Making Framework with Principle-Level Explainability and Pluralistic Validation [0.0]
  We introduce an Explainability and Traceability Module (ETM) that explicitly links each ethical decision rule to the underlying moral principles.<n>We replace single-referent validation with a pluralistic semantic validation framework.<n>The resulting extended fEDM, called fEDM+, preserves formal verifiability while achieving enhanced interpretability and stakeholder-aware validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-25T09:58:14Z)
• Adversarial Yet Cooperative: Multi-Perspective Reasoning in Retrieved-Augmented Language Models [72.4149653187766]
  We propose a Reasoner-Verifier framework named Adrialversa Reasoning RAG (ARR)<n>The Reasoner and Verifier engage in reasoning on retrieved evidence and critiquing each other's logic while being guided by process-aware advantage.<n> Experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our method.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-08T06:57:03Z)
• 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)
• Disagree and Commit: Degrees of Argumentation-based Agreements [0.5524804393257919]
  We introduce the notion of agreement scenarios that allow artificial autonomous agents to reach such agreements.<n>We introduce the notions of degrees of satisfaction and (minimum, mean, and median) agreement, as well as a measure of the impact a value in a value-based argumentation framework has on these notions.<n>We analyze how degrees of agreement are affected when agreement scenarios are expanded with new information, to shed light on the reliability of partial agreements in dynamic scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-31T12:49:58Z)
• Technical Report on the Learning of Case Relevance in Case-Based Reasoning with Abstract Argumentation [14.755026411356315]
  We show how relevance can be learnt automatically in practice with the help of decision trees. We also show that AA-CBR with decision-tree-based learning of case relevance results in a more compact representation than their decision tree counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T15:01:41Z)
• A Unifying Framework for Learning Argumentation Semantics [47.84663434179473]
  We present a novel framework, which uses an Inductive Logic Programming approach to learn the acceptability semantics for several abstract and structured argumentation frameworks in an interpretable way.<n>Our framework outperforms existing argumentation solvers, thus opening up new future research directions in the area of formal argumentation and human-machine dialogues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T20:18:05Z)
• 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)
• Logical Satisfiability of Counterfactuals for Faithful Explanations in NLI [60.142926537264714]
  We introduce the methodology of Faithfulness-through-Counterfactuals. It generates a counterfactual hypothesis based on the logical predicates expressed in the explanation. It then evaluates if the model's prediction on the counterfactual is consistent with that expressed logic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-25T03:40:59Z)
• A Formalisation of Abstract Argumentation in Higher-Order Logic [77.34726150561087]
  We present an approach for representing abstract argumentation frameworks based on an encoding into classical higher-order logic. This provides a uniform framework for computer-assisted assessment of abstract argumentation frameworks using interactive and automated reasoning tools.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-18T10:45:59Z)
• Thinking About Causation: A Causal Language with Epistemic Operators [58.720142291102135]
  We extend the notion of a causal model with a representation of the state of an agent. On the side of the object language, we add operators to express knowledge and the act of observing new information. We provide a sound and complete axiomatization of the logic, and discuss the relation of this framework to causal team semantics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-30T12:16:45Z)

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.