Aristotelian Virtue Profiling of LLMs through Ethical Dilemmas

We present Six Llamas, a comparative study examining whether large language models fine-tuned on distinct religious corpora encode systematically different patterns of ethical reasoning. Six variants of Meta-Llama-3.1-8B are constructed: one unmodified control and five LoRA-adapted models trained exclusively on the sacred and theological texts of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism. All six models are probed with an identical battery of 17 standardized ethical prompts spanning moral dilemmas, game-theoretic scenarios, public policy questions, and moral-psychological self-assessments. To assess robustness and reproducibility, we implement a multi-temperature sampling design spanning ten temperature settings. We compute response consistency metrics, pairwise inter-model agreement rates, temperature sensitivity coefficients across four prompt domains, and run-to-run stability analyses. Findings show that LoRA-adapted models produce ethical reasoning patterns that are (a) systematically differentiated from the base model, (b) consistent with the moral logics of their training traditions, (c) structured along interpretable dimensions in moral-philosophical space, (d) core ethical positions remain stable across temperature variations for high-consensus dilemmas. The Trolley Problem achieves 100% consistency across all models and temperatures, while (e) tradition-specific divergence intensifies at higher temperatures in morally contested domains, and (f) the base model exhibits the highest overall response consistency (mean 88.3%), suggesting LoRA adaptation introduces both tradition-specific signal and increased sampling sensitivity. The study offers a proof-of-concept for the condensate comparative method using differentially trained language models as instruments for cultural and ethical analysis and identifies specific criteria for falsification and planned extensions.

The key question in moral judgement is not simply whether someone chooses the "right" answer, but how they decide what matters most when moral principles conflict. Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) remain limited: most test whether models give morally acceptable answers, match human preferences, or avoid obvious violations, rather than whether they can prioritise between competing principles when no option is morally cost-free. We introduce CORDA (Conditioned Ordering and Ranked Directive Adherence), a benchmark for evaluating hierarchical, harm-centred moral reasoning in LLMs. Building on the morality chains formalism, CORDA tests 90 moral dilemmas involving trolley-style cases, medical trade-offs, resource allocation, and human-animal-robot conflicts across four ordered ethical frameworks: Utility, Utility + Agent Harm, Dual-Process, and Dual-Process + Agent Harm. Together, these frameworks test whether models can adapt their decisions when moral priorities change. Across ten instruction-tuned models from seven providers, we find a strong deontological default, with 9 of 10 prioritising avoidance of direct personal harm over reducing overall harm. Models also perform more reliably on categorical harm-avoidance rules, such as avoiding killing, than on outcome-based comparisons, such as minimising total harm, suggesting that they recognise moral red lines more easily than they reason through competing harms. Although all models respond to explicit chain conditioning, several fail to consistently follow specified priority orderings, such as humans over animals and animals over robots. CORDA addresses a central gap in LLM moral evaluation by testing whether models can move beyond default harm-avoidant responses and apply context-specified moral priorities. Moral reliability requires more than default restraint; it requires controllability under conflict.

Are large language models (LLMs) bad at capturing human judgment? Two commonly stated limitations are that LLMs fail to capture full distributions of responses, and that their judgments are unstable across wording variations. We demonstrate simple prompting strategies that mitigate these limitations. Across two datasets--a U.S.-representative set of 144 moral scenarios and 38 moral beliefs from the International Social Survey Programme's Family and Changing Gender Roles module covering 32 countries--we show how simple elicitation techniques help improve AI-human alignment. First, prompting models to report standard deviations and response proportions recovers the full range of human responses better than common strategies. Second, ensuring scenarios are clear to human participants--as reflected in human confusion ratings--boosts model alignment, and LLMs can track human confusion ratings. At the same time, we find that LLMs' estimates of their own error are poorly calibrated, though they can predict human variability relatively well. These results suggest that asking better questions to LLMs can yield better answers.