Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Rethinking Machine Ethics -- Can LLMs Perform Moral Reasoning through the Lens of Moral Theories?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2308.15399 v2 pith:2RVJJQE4 submitted 2023-08-29 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords moraltheoriesdatasetsframeworkmodelsapproachesdevelopingexisting
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

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. These approaches have been criticized for overgeneralizing the moral stances of a limited group of annotators and lacking explainability. 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. The theory-guided top-down framework can incorporate various moral theories. Our experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework on datasets derived from moral theories. Furthermore, we show the alignment between different moral theories and existing morality datasets. Our analysis exhibits the potential and flaws in existing resources (models and datasets) in developing explainable moral judgment-making systems.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. The Staircase of Ethics: Probing LLM Value Priorities through Multi-Step Induction to Complex Moral Dilemmas

    cs.CL 2025-05 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new benchmark of escalating moral dilemmas shows that LLMs shift their value priorities across steps and display aggregate non-transitive preference patterns.

  2. Deontological Keyword Bias: The Impact of Modal Expressions on Normative Judgments of Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LLMs systematically treat modal words like 'must' as evidence of obligation even in non-obligatory contexts, more strongly than humans, and a few-shot plus reasoning prompt can lower the rate of such judgments.

Pith tools