Inference of Intention and Permissibility in Moral Decision Making

The actions of a rational agent reveal information about its mental states. These inferred mental states, particularly the agent’s intentions, play an important role in the evaluation of moral permissibility. While previous computational models have shown that beliefs and desires can be inferred from behavior under the assumption of rational action they have critically lacked a third mental state, intentions. In this work, we develop a novel formalism for intentions and show how they can be inferred as counterfactual contrasts over influence diagrams. This model is used to quantitatively explain judgments about intention and moral permissibility in classic and novel trolley problems.

[1]  Nir Friedman,et al.  Probabilistic Graphical Models - Principles and Techniques , 2009 .

[2]  K. Holyoak,et al.  The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning , 2012 .

[3]  B. Malle,et al.  The Folk Concept of Intentionality , 1997 .

[4]  Moisès Esteban-Guitart A natural history of human thinking Michael Tomasello A natural history of human thinking , 2014, Animal Behaviour.

[5]  Leslie Pack Kaelbling,et al.  Belief space planning assuming maximum likelihood observations , 2010, Robotics: Science and Systems.

[6]  Jonas Nagel,et al.  Moral Judgment , 1921 .

[7]  Eong Jinkyu,et al.  What is the Trolley Problem , 2015 .

[8]  F. Cushman Action, Outcome, and Value , 2013, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[9]  John Mikhail Opinion TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences Vol.11 No.4 Universal moral grammar: theory, evidence and the future , 2022 .

[10]  Chris L. Baker,et al.  Action understanding as inverse planning , 2009, Cognition.

[11]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[12]  Joshua D. Greene Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them , 2001 .

[13]  Charles Kemp,et al.  Capturing mental state reasoning with influence diagrams , 2011, CogSci.

[14]  Philip M. Fernbach,et al.  A Causal Model of Intentionality Judgment , 2012 .

[15]  Ro'i Zultan,et al.  Causal Responsibility and Counterfactuals , 2013, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  M. Crockett Models of morality , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Joshua B. Tenenbaum,et al.  How, whether, why: Causal judgments as counterfactual contrasts , 2015, CogSci.

[18]  T. Tännsjö Moral dimensions , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[19]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[20]  A. Alexandrova The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science , 1965, Nature.