An Integrated Reasoning Approach to Moral Decision-Making

We present a computational model, MoralDM, which integrates several AI techniques in order to model recent psychological findings on moral decision-making. Current theories of moral decision-making extend beyond pure utilitarian models by relying on contextual factors that vary with culture. MoralDM uses a natural language system to produce formal representations from psychological stimuli, to reduce tailorability. The impacts of secular versus sacred values are modeled via qualitative reasoning, using an order of magnitude representation. MoralDM uses a combination of first-principles reasoning and analogical reasoning to determine consequences and utilities when making moral judgments. We describe how MoralDM works and show that it can model psychological results and improve its performance via accumulating examples.

[1]  Daniel M. Bartels,et al.  Are Morally Motivated Decision Makers Insensitive to the Consequences of Their Choices? , 2007, Psychological science.

[2]  Bruce M. McLaren,et al.  Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning: Challenges, Initial Steps, and Future Directions , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[3]  Philippe Dague,et al.  Troubleshooting: When Modeling Is the Trouble , 1987, AAAI.

[4]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values and Omission Bias. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[5]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Analogical Learning of Visual/Conceptual Relationships in Sketches , 2005, AAAI.

[6]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  The Roles of Similarity in Transfer: Separating Retrievability From Inferential Soundness , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Michael Anderson,et al.  An Approach to Computing Ethics , 2006, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[8]  Brian Falkenhainer,et al.  The Structure-Mapping Engine: Algorithm and Examples , 1989, Artif. Intell..

[9]  E. Weber,et al.  ‘How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways’: A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States , 2005, Management and Organization Review.

[10]  Michael L. Mavrovouniotis,et al.  Reasoning with Orders of Magnitude and Approximate Relations , 1987, AAAI.

[11]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Cross-National Differences in Risk Preference and Lay Predictions , 1999 .

[12]  Daniel M. Bartels,et al.  The Costs and Benefits of Calculation and Moral Rules , 2009, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[13]  J. Haidt,et al.  Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? , 1993, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Analogy and moral decision making , 2009 .

[15]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[16]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Making SME greedy and pragmatic , 2006 .

[17]  Philippe Dague Model-based diagnosis of analog electronic circuits , 2005, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[18]  Treebank Penn,et al.  Linguistic Data Consortium , 1999 .

[19]  Ramanathan V. Guha,et al.  Building large knowledge-based systems , 1989 .

[20]  Olivier Raiman,et al.  Order of Magnitude Reasoning , 1986, Artif. Intell..

[21]  Diego Reforgiato Recupero,et al.  CARA: A Cultural-Reasoning Architecture , 2007, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[22]  Baron,et al.  Protected Values , 1997, Virology.

[23]  G. Stephanopoulos,et al.  Formal order-of-magnitude reasoning in process engineering , 1989 .

[24]  James F. Allen Natural language understanding , 1987, Bejnamin/Cummings series in computer science.

[25]  R. Lazarus Emotion and Adaptation , 1991 .

[26]  James F. Allen Natural language understanding (2nd ed.) , 1995 .

[27]  Douglas L. Medin,et al.  Memory and cognitive processes , 2002 .

[28]  Uwe Reyle,et al.  From discourse to logic , 1993 .

[29]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  The role of cultural narratives in moral decision-making , 2009 .

[30]  M. Waldmann,et al.  Throwing a Bomb on a Person Versus Throwing a Person on a Bomb , 2007, Psychological science.

[31]  C. Hsee,et al.  Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception,But Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk , 1998 .

[32]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  Incremental Structure-Mapping , 2019, Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

[33]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Regular ArticleProtected Values , 1997 .

[34]  P. Tetlock Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[35]  Patrick Henry Winston,et al.  Learning New Principles from Precedents and Exercises , 1982, Artif. Intell..

[36]  D. Gentner Structure‐Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy* , 1983 .

[37]  Bruce M. McLaren,et al.  Lessons in Machine Ethics from the Perspective of Two Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning , 2005 .

[38]  Andrew Ortony,et al.  The Cognitive Structure of Emotions , 1988 .

[39]  Philippe Dague Numeric Reasoning with Relative Orders of Magnitude , 1993, AAAI.

[40]  Stacy Marsella,et al.  A domain-independent framework for modeling emotion , 2004, Cognitive Systems Research.

[41]  Sven E. Kuehne Capturing QP-relevant Information from Natural Language Text , 2004 .

[42]  Kenneth D. Forbus,et al.  MAC/FAC: A Model of Similarity-Based Retrieval , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[43]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[44]  P. Tetlock Cognitive Biases and Organizational Correctives: Do Both Disease and Cure Depend on the Politics of the Beholder? , 2000 .

[45]  Philippe Dague Symbolic Reasoning with Relative Orders of Magnitude , 1993, IJCAI.

[46]  V. S. Subrahmanian,et al.  CARA: A Cultural Adversarial Reasoning Architecture , 2007 .

[47]  S. Atran,et al.  Sacred Barriers to Conflict Resolution , 2007, Science.