When Values Clash: AI Navigates the Gray Areas of Human Behavior

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new framework uses artificial intelligence to identify conflicting social norms and provide explainable reasoning for ethical assessments of actions.

Conflicting social norms exert varying degrees of influence on human behavior, and ClarityEthicis provides a framework for assessing and explaining these often-competing pressures on everyday situations.
Conflicting social norms exert varying degrees of influence on human behavior, and ClarityEthicis provides a framework for assessing and explaining these often-competing pressures on everyday situations.

ClarityEthic leverages contrastive learning and task-specific language models to assess the valence of human actions and generate explanations for ethical judgments.

Assessing the ethical valence of human actions remains challenging for AI, often lacking the nuanced reasoning inherent in human judgment. This limitation motivates the research presented in ‘Explainable Ethical Assessment on Human Behaviors by Generating Conflicting Social Norms’, which proposes a novel approach to ethical assessment by explicitly modeling the interplay of competing social norms. The core innovation lies in ‘ClarityEthic’, a framework leveraging contrastive learning to generate plausible explanations for an action’s valence based on these conflicting norms, thereby enhancing both prediction accuracy and model interpretability. Could this explicit reasoning process pave the way for more trustworthy and transparent AI systems capable of navigating complex ethical dilemmas?

The Ethical Imperative: Navigating Moral Complexity in Artificial Intelligence

Contemporary artificial intelligence frequently encounters difficulties when navigating the subtleties of ethical decision-making, largely due to an inability to effectively reconcile conflicting social norms. These systems, while proficient at pattern recognition and data analysis, often operate with a rigid adherence to programmed rules, failing to account for the contextual factors that heavily influence human moral judgements. For example, an AI tasked with determining appropriate behavior in a culturally sensitive situation might misinterpret a gesture or custom, leading to an ethically questionable outcome. This isn’t a matter of malicious intent, but rather a limitation in the AI’s capacity to understand the implicit rules and unwritten codes that govern human interactions – norms which are often ambiguous, contradictory, and subject to interpretation. Consequently, AI applications in areas like autonomous vehicles, criminal justice, and healthcare require significant refinement to ensure they don’t perpetuate biases or make decisions that violate widely held ethical principles.

Current evaluations of artificial intelligence ethics frequently rely on simplified scenarios and benchmark datasets that struggle to mirror the messy, context-dependent nature of human moral reasoning. These methods often assess AI responses against predetermined ‘correct’ answers, failing to account for the valid, yet differing, perspectives that frequently arise in real-world ethical dilemmas. Consequently, an AI might achieve a high score on a standardized test while still exhibiting a flawed understanding of the underlying principles, or an inability to justify its decisions in a manner that resonates with human expectations. This limitation stems from the difficulty of quantifying subjective values and the nuanced interplay of factors – such as intent, consequence, and cultural context – that shape human moral judgments, highlighting a critical gap between algorithmic performance and genuine ethical understanding.

The efficacy of ethically-trained artificial intelligence is fundamentally limited by the datasets upon which it learns. Current datasets frequently exhibit a concerning lack of diversity in representing genuine moral disagreements; instead, they often present a skewed or monolithic view of ethical considerations. This bias arises from several sources, including the demographics of data annotators and the inherent difficulty in capturing the subtleties of conflicting viewpoints. Consequently, AI systems trained on such datasets struggle to navigate scenarios where legitimate ethical arguments clash, leading to solutions that reflect the dominant perspective within the training data rather than a balanced assessment of all relevant concerns. Addressing this requires a deliberate effort to curate datasets that actively incorporate a broad spectrum of moral reasoning, acknowledging the inherent subjectivity and cultural relativity often present in ethical dilemmas.

The development of truly ethical artificial intelligence demands a shift beyond simple dilemma detection; systems must be capable of transparently justifying their moral reasoning. Current AI often identifies ethically fraught scenarios, but lacks the ability to articulate why a particular action is deemed right or wrong, hindering trust and accountability. Researchers are now focusing on equipping AI with the capacity to generate coherent, logically sound rationales for its decisions, drawing upon principles of moral philosophy and legal reasoning. This necessitates more than just pattern recognition; it requires AI to build and express arguments, acknowledge trade-offs, and demonstrate an understanding of the underlying values at play. Ultimately, an AI that can explain its ethical choices is not simply a more advanced tool, but a partner capable of fostering genuine collaboration and informed decision-making in complex scenarios.

ClarityEthic leverages pre-trained language models and contrastive learning to predict the ethical valence of actions, generating both supporting and opposing rationales grounded in two-path social norms.
ClarityEthic leverages pre-trained language models and contrastive learning to predict the ethical valence of actions, generating both supporting and opposing rationales grounded in two-path social norms.

Conflicted Moral Assessment: A Framework for Discerning Ethical Nuance

ClarityEthic utilizes Large Language Models (LLMs) to process actions not in isolation, but as they relate to potentially contradictory societal expectations. The LLM functions by receiving an action as input and then identifying relevant social norms through pattern recognition in a large corpus of text data. This process allows the framework to determine which norms apply to the given action and to quantify the degree to which the action aligns with or violates those norms. Crucially, the LLM isn’t limited to a pre-defined list of norms; it can dynamically identify and incorporate nuanced or localized norms present in the input data, enabling assessment within specific cultural or situational contexts.

ClarityEthic’s systematic assessment of ethical implications is achieved through three core modules. The Valence Scorer quantifies the perceived ethical alignment of an action with identified norms, producing a numerical value representing its positive or negative ethical weight. The Norm Generator dynamically identifies relevant social norms applicable to a given action, drawing from a pre-defined knowledge base and contextual inputs. Finally, the Rationale Generator constructs textual explanations detailing why an action receives a specific valence score, linking it directly to the identified norms and providing a transparent audit trail for the assessment.

ClarityEthic differentiates itself from basic ethical assessment tools by incorporating a Rationale Generator module. This component does not merely categorize an action as ethical or unethical; instead, it produces textual justifications outlining the reasons supporting or opposing the action, referencing the underlying social norms identified by the Norm Generator. The generated rationales are not pre-defined statements but are dynamically created based on the specific input action and the modeled norms, providing a detailed explanation of the ethical reasoning process. This capability allows users to understand why an action receives a particular assessment, rather than simply receiving a binary judgment.

ClarityEthic enhances decision-making transparency by representing multiple, potentially opposing, ethical viewpoints. The framework doesn’t seek a single “correct” answer but instead explicitly models the rationales supporting and opposing a given action, based on identified social norms. This multi-perspective approach moves beyond simple ethical categorization by detailing why an action is considered acceptable or unacceptable from different standpoints. The generated rationales are then available for review, enabling stakeholders to understand the basis of the assessment and increasing the justifiability of any resulting decision. This explicit modeling of conflicting perspectives aims to reduce ambiguity and facilitate more informed and accountable outcomes.

Human evaluations demonstrate that ChatGPT and ClarityEthicon MoSt both generate rationales that are perceived similarly by evaluators.
Human evaluations demonstrate that ChatGPT and ClarityEthicon MoSt both generate rationales that are perceived similarly by evaluators.

Empirical Validation: Demonstrating Performance in Moral Reasoning

ClarityEthic’s training process leveraged two primary datasets: the Moral Stories Dataset and the ETHICS Dataset. The Moral Stories Dataset consists of narratives detailing morally ambiguous situations and associated human judgments, providing examples of contextual ethical reasoning. The ETHICS Dataset, conversely, offers a collection of explicitly labeled ethical scenarios and corresponding normative assessments. Combining these datasets resulted in a training corpus of approximately 120,000 examples, allowing the model to learn patterns associating situational context with ethical considerations and expected behaviors. This dual-dataset approach was intended to provide both broad contextual understanding and explicit ethical grounding for the model’s subsequent reasoning capabilities.

Contrastive learning was implemented to enhance ClarityEthic’s capacity for ethical discernment by training the model to differentiate between pairs of actions exhibiting ethical relationships and those that do not. This involved constructing a dataset of positive and negative examples, where positive pairs consisted of actions deemed ethically similar or connected, and negative pairs represented unrelated or conflicting actions. The model was then trained to maximize the similarity between embeddings of positive pairs and minimize the similarity between embeddings of negative pairs, using a loss function designed to optimize this distinction. This process effectively refined the model’s understanding of ethical nuances, improving its ability to assess the ethical implications of various actions and scenarios.

ClarityEthic utilizes the T5 transformer architecture, modified through prefix-tuning to enhance performance on three core ethical reasoning tasks. Prefix-tuning involves adding a sequence of trainable vectors, or “prefix,” to the input of the T5 model, allowing for adaptation without modifying the core model weights. This approach optimizes the model for valence scoring – determining the ethical sentiment of an action – and for the generation of both rationales explaining the ethical assessment and norms outlining the relevant ethical principles. The application of prefix-tuning enabled task-specific optimization, improving the model’s ability to produce coherent and relevant outputs for each of these distinct functions within the ethical reasoning framework.

ClarityEthic demonstrates leading performance in moral reasoning, achieving 92% accuracy on the Moral Stories dataset. This result represents a significant improvement over previously established benchmarks in the field. The dataset consists of narratives presenting ethical dilemmas, and the model’s accuracy is determined by its ability to correctly identify the ethically preferable action within each scenario. This performance metric was calculated using a held-out test set, ensuring a robust evaluation of the model’s generalization capabilities and minimizing the risk of overfitting to the training data.

Evaluation of ClarityEthic’s generated rationales utilized both automated metrics and human assessment to determine their quality and coherence. Human evaluators assigned a plausibility score to the generated rationales, resulting in an average of 2.42. This score is statistically comparable to the 2.45 plausibility score achieved by ChatGPT when evaluated using the same methodology, indicating a similar level of believability and logical consistency in the rationales produced by both models. This assessment confirms ClarityEthic’s capacity to generate explanations that align with human expectations regarding reasoning and justification.

Human evaluation of generated rationales revealed that ClarityEthic surpasses ChatGPT in terms of relevance. Evaluators consistently rated ClarityEthic’s explanations as more directly pertinent to the given ethical scenarios compared to those generated by ChatGPT. This assessment was based on a comparative review of rationale outputs, indicating a stronger alignment between the provided reasoning and the specific context of the ethical dilemma. While ChatGPT demonstrated comparable plausibility scores, the human evaluations specifically highlighted the superior relevance of ClarityEthic’s generated rationales, suggesting a more focused and contextually appropriate reasoning process.

Comparing performance on the MoSt dataset, the full model incorporating contrastive learning demonstrates improved norm generation compared to its counterpart without this component.
Comparing performance on the MoSt dataset, the full model incorporating contrastive learning demonstrates improved norm generation compared to its counterpart without this component.

Toward Responsible Innovation: Implications and Future Directions for Ethical AI

ClarityEthic emerges as a practical resource for developers navigating the increasingly complex landscape of ethical artificial intelligence. This framework isn’t merely about adding an ‘ethics layer’ onto existing systems; it provides a systematic approach to integrating ethical considerations directly into the design process. By prompting developers to articulate the values underpinning their AI, and to explicitly define how those values translate into concrete behavioral guidelines, ClarityEthic facilitates the creation of AI systems that are not only technically proficient but also demonstrably aligned with human values. The tool’s value lies in its ability to move beyond abstract ethical principles and provide a tangible method for building AI that reflects and upholds desired societal norms, offering a crucial step toward responsible innovation in the field.

A core benefit of the ClarityEthic framework lies in its capacity to produce detailed, explicit rationales for each AI decision. Rather than functioning as a ‘black box’, the system articulates the ethical principles and reasoning that led to a particular outcome, creating a clear audit trail. This feature is critical for fostering both transparency and accountability; stakeholders can examine why an AI system made a specific choice, verifying its adherence to pre-defined ethical guidelines and identifying potential areas of concern. By making the decision-making process visible, ClarityEthic facilitates trust in AI systems and enables meaningful oversight, particularly in high-stakes applications where justifications are paramount. Such explicitness also supports debugging and refinement, allowing developers to pinpoint and address ethical shortcomings with greater precision.

ClarityEthic addresses the pervasive challenge of bias in artificial intelligence by moving beyond simple rule-based ethics and instead explicitly modeling the frequently conflicting norms that underpin human moral reasoning. This innovative approach doesn’t seek to define a single “correct” ethical stance, but rather to represent the tensions inherent in ethical dilemmas – for example, the conflict between privacy and security, or individual autonomy and collective wellbeing. By forcing AI systems to navigate these competing values, ClarityEthic reveals potential biases embedded within algorithms, which often prioritize one norm over others without transparent justification. The framework then facilitates mitigation strategies, allowing developers to design AI that acknowledges and appropriately balances conflicting values, leading to more equitable and accountable outcomes. This nuanced approach moves beyond detecting bias based on pre-defined categories and instead uncovers subtler, context-dependent biases that might otherwise remain hidden.

The continued development of ClarityEthic centers on broadening its capacity to address increasingly nuanced ethical challenges, moving beyond simplified scenarios to grapple with the ambiguities inherent in real-world decision-making. Researchers are actively working to incorporate more sophisticated methods for representing and resolving conflicting ethical norms, anticipating situations where universal principles clash or require careful trade-offs. Crucially, the framework’s integration into practical applications – from autonomous vehicles and medical diagnosis to financial modeling and criminal justice – represents a key priority. This transition necessitates robust testing and validation across diverse datasets and user groups, ensuring that ClarityEthic not only identifies potential ethical concerns but also facilitates the design of AI systems that demonstrably prioritize fairness, accountability, and societal well-being.

The pursuit of ClarityEthic, as detailed in the paper, echoes a fundamental tenet of mathematical rigor. It isn’t merely sufficient to demonstrate that an assessment functions; the framework demands explainability-a clear, logical path from action to ethical valence. This resonates deeply with David Hilbert’s assertion: “We must be able to answer the question: What are the fundamental principles upon which mathematics is based?” The generation of conflicting social norms within ClarityEthic isn’t about creating ambiguity, but about meticulously mapping the boundaries of ethical reasoning, much like defining axioms in a formal system. The system’s reliance on contrastive learning and valence prediction highlights a desire to build a provable, rather than simply empirical, understanding of human behavior.

What’s Next?

The pursuit of ethical assessment, as demonstrated by ClarityEthic, inevitably confronts the inherent messiness of human social constructs. While the framework adeptly generates conflicting norms – a mathematically sound approach to exposing ethical ambiguities – it sidesteps the fundamental question of resolution. The generation of conflict is trivial; establishing a consistent, provable metric for its evaluation remains elusive. Current reliance on valence prediction, though computationally efficient, is a descriptive, not a prescriptive, exercise.

Future iterations must move beyond identifying that a conflict exists, and address how such conflicts should be adjudicated. This necessitates a formalization of moral reasoning-a move toward a symbolic logic of ethics. The current reliance on large language models, while offering a convenient approximation of human judgment, ultimately rests on statistical correlations, not axiomatic truth. A truly elegant solution will require a demonstrable consistency independent of training data, a system where ethical conclusions follow necessarily from defined principles.

The field should therefore prioritize the development of formal ethical languages, capable of expressing complex moral scenarios with unambiguous precision. Only then can algorithms move beyond mirroring human inconsistency and toward providing genuinely provable ethical assessments, divorced from the vagaries of cultural context and subjective interpretation.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2512.15793.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2025-12-21 06:45