Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T15:54:14.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning

Challenges, Initial Steps, and Future Directions

from PART IV - APPROACHES TO MACHINE ETHICS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2011

By
Bruce M. McLaren
Edited by
Michael Anderson  and
Susan Leigh Anderson
Michael Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Hartford, Connecticut
Susan Leigh Anderson
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Introduction

How can machines support, or even more significantly replace, humans in performing ethical reasoning? This is a question of great interest to those engaged in Machine Ethics research. Imbuing a computer with the ability to reason about ethical problems and dilemmas is as difficult a task as there is for Artificial Intelligence (AI) scientists and engineers. First, ethical reasoning is based on abstract principles that cannot be easily applied in formal, deductive fashion. Thus the favorite tools of logicians and mathematicians, such as first-order logic, are not applicable. Second, although there have been many theoretical frameworks proposed by philosophers throughout intellectual history, such as Aristotelian virtue theory (Aristotle, edited and published in 1924), the ethics of respect for persons (Kant 1785), Act Utilitarianism (Bentham 1789), Utilitarianism (Mill 1863), and prima facie duties (Ross 1930), there is no universal agreement on which ethical theory or approach is the best. Furthermore, any of these theories or approaches could be the focus of inquiry, but all are difficult to make computational without relying on simplifying assumptions and subjective interpretation. Finally, ethical issues touch human beings in a profound and fundamental way. The premises, beliefs, and principles employed by humans as they make ethical decisions are quite varied, not fully understood, and often inextricably intertwined with religious beliefs. How does one take such uniquely human characteristics and distil them into a computer program?

Type
Chapter
Information
Machine Ethics , pp. 297 - 315
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the Mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Anderson, S. L. (2005). Asimov's “Three Laws of Robotics” and Machine Metaethics. Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics, Crystal City, VA. Technical Report FS-05–06, 1–7.Google Scholar
Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., and Armen, C. (2005a). Towards Machine Ethics: Implementing Two Action-Based Ethical Theories. Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Machine Ethics, Crystal City, VA. Technical Report FS-05–06, 1–7.Google Scholar
Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., and Armen, C. (2005b). MedEthEx: Toward a Medical Ethics Advisor. Proceedings of the AAAI 2005 Fall Symposium on Caring Machines: AI in Elder Care, Crystal City, VA.Google Scholar
Aristotle, , (edited and published in 1924) Nicomachean Ethics. Ross, W. D., editor, Oxford, 1924.Google Scholar
Ashley, K. D. (1990). Modeling Legal Argument: Reasoning with Cases and Hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Ashley, K. D. and McLaren, B. M. (1995). Reasoning with Reasons in Case-Based Comparisons. In the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Case-Based Reasoning, Sesimbra, Portugal.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. L. and Childress, J. F. (1979). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1789). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. In Harrison, W. (ed.), Oxford: Hafner Press, 1948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bok, S. (1989). Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life. New York: Random House, Inc. Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Brody, B. (2003). Taking Issue: Pluralism and Casuistry in Bioethics. Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Cavalier, R. and Covey, P. K. (1996). A Right to Die? The Dax Cowart Case CD-ROM Teacher's Guide, Version 1.0, Center for the Advancement of Applied Ethics, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, A. (1987). An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldin, I. M., Ashley, K. D., and Pinkus, R. L. (2001). Introducing PETE: Computer Support for Teaching Ethics. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence & Law (ICAIL-2001). Eds. Prakken, Henry and Loui, Ronald P.. Association of Computing Machinery, New York.Google Scholar
Harris, C. E., Pritchard, M. S., and Rabins, M. J. (1995). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and Cases. 1st edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Jonsen, A. R. and Toulmin, S. (1988). The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, in Practical Philosophy, translated by Gregor, M. J., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
McLaren, B. M. and Ashley, K. D. (1995). Case-Based Comparative Evaluation in Truth-Teller. In the Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
McLaren, B. M. (1999). Assessing the Relevance of Cases and Principles Using Operationalization Techniques. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
McLaren, B. M. (2003). Extensionally Defining Principles and Cases in Ethics: an AI Model; Artificial Intelligence Journal, Volume 150, November 2003, pp. 145–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, B. M. (2006). Computational Models of Ethical Reasoning: Challenges, Initial Steps, and Future Directions. IEEE Intelligent Systems, Published by the IEEE Computer Society. July/August 2006. 29–37.Google Scholar
McLaren, B. M., DeLeeuw, K. E., & Mayer, R. E. (2011). Polite web-based intelligent tutors: Can they improve learning in classrooms?Computers & Education, 56, 574–584. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaren, B. M., Wegerif, R., Mikšátko, J., Scheuer, O., Chamrada, M., & Mansour, N. (2009). Are your students working creatively together? Automatically recognizing creative turns in student e-Discussions. In Dimitrova, V., Mizoguchi, R., Boulay, B. du, & Graesser, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED-09), Artificial Intelligence in Education: Building Learning Systems that Care: From Knowledge Representation to Affective Modelling. (pp. 317–324). IOS Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S.Utilitarianism. (1863). In Sher, George, (Ed.) Indianapolis, Indiana, USA: Hackett Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
Engineers, National Society of Professional (1996). The NSPE Ethics Reference Guide. Alexandria, VA: the National Society of Professional Engineers.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice, 2nd Edition 1999, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, R. W. and Wallace, W. A. (2007). A Decision Aid for Ethical Problem Solving: A Multi-Agent Approach. Decision Support Systems, 43(4): 1571–1587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, R. W., Wallace, W. A., and Puka, B. (2004). Supporting Ethical Problem Solving: An Exploratory Investigation. In the Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Special Interest Group on Management Information Systems and Computer Personnel Research, 22–24.CrossRef
Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Searing, D. R. (1998). HARPS Ethical Analysis Methodology, Method Description. Version 2.0.0., Lake Zurich, IL: Taknosys Software Corporation, 1998.Google Scholar
Strong, C. (1988). Justification in Ethics. In Brody, Baruch A., editor, Moral Theory and Moral Judgments in Medical Ethics, 193–211. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×