Moral Reasoning in Language Models

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

The field examines how language models recognize moral stakes, choose between competing values, and apply judgments in settings such as trolley dilemmas, clinical resource allocation, and interpersonal advice. Researchers compare model decisions with human judgments and use multilingual, counterfactual, and multi-turn adversarial tests to probe cultural variation and robustness; methods range from prompting and fine-tuning to multi-agent debate and mechanistic analysis of internal representations. Models can produce persuasive ethical explanations, but their choices may shift with framing, language, social pressure, or conversation history, and explanations do not always predict behavior. A central challenge is improving consistency and resilience without imposing one narrow moral standard across culturally diverse people and situations.

Latest papers

114 papers9 papers in the last four weeks, down 25% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Mar 24, 2026

How Utilitarian Are OpenAI's Models Really? Replicating and Reinterpreting Pfeffer, Krügel, and Uhl (2025)

Pfeffer, Krügel, and Uhl (2025) report that OpenAI's reasoning model o1-mini produces more utilitarian responses to the trolley problem and footbridge dilemma than the non-reasoning model GPT-4o, and they raise the question whether growing reasoning capabilities bring about a "utilitarian turn" in LLMs. I extend their exploratory study in a direction they call for: with four current OpenAI models and systematic prompt variation. On the trolley dilemma, the hypothesized utilitarian turn is not confirmed. GPT-4o's low utilitarian rate reflects safety refusals triggered by the prompt's advisory framing rather than a deontological commitment; on reformulated prompt variants -- for instance, agent-neutral "Is it morally permissible...?" instead of advisory "Should I...?" -- all four models, reasoning or not, converge on utilitarian answers. The footbridge finding is partially confirmed: reasoning models tend to give more utilitarian responses than non-reasoning models across prompt variations, but they often refuse to answer or answer non-utilitarian. These results demonstrate that single-prompt evaluations of LLM moral responses are unreliable: multi-prompt robustness testing should be standard practice for any empirical claims about LLM behavior.

Johannes Himmelreich

Prompt Sensitivity Moral Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Safety Evaluation LLM Refusal Behavior Large Reasoning Models Moral Reasoning

Mar 23, 2026

Reasoning or Rhetoric? An Empirical Analysis of Moral Reasoning Explanations in Large Language Models

Do large language models reason morally, or do they merely sound like they do? We investigate whether LLM responses to moral dilemmas exhibit genuine developmental progression through Kohlberg's stages of moral development, or whether alignment training instead produces reasoning-like outputs that superficially resemble mature moral judgment without the underlying developmental trajectory. Using an LLM-as-judge scoring pipeline validated across three judge models, we classify more than 600 responses from 13 LLMs spanning a range of architectures, parameter scales, and training regimes across six classical moral dilemmas, and conduct ten complementary analyses to characterize the nature and internal coherence of the resulting patterns. Our results reveal a striking inversion: responses overwhelmingly correspond to post-conventional reasoning (Stages 5-6) regardless of model size, architecture, or prompting strategy, the effective inverse of human developmental norms, where Stage 4 dominates. Most strikingly, a subset of models exhibit moral decoupling: systematic inconsistency between stated moral justification and action choice, a form of logical incoherence that persists across scale and prompting strategy and represents a direct reasoning consistency failure independent of rhetorical sophistication. Model scale carries a statistically significant but practically small effect; training type has no significant independent main effect; and models exhibit near-robotic cross-dilemma consistency producing logically indistinguishable responses across semantically distinct moral problems. We posit that these patterns constitute evidence for moral ventriloquism: the acquisition, through alignment training, of the rhetorical conventions of mature moral reasoning without the underlying developmental trajectory those conventions are meant to represent.

Aryan Kasat, Smriti Singh, Aman Chadha +1

UT Austin · Google GenAI

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Reasoning Consistency in Language Models LLM Alignment

Mar 23, 2026

Implicit Humanization in Everyday LLM Moral Judgments

Recent adoption of conversational information systems has expanded the scope of user queries to include complex tasks such as personal advice-seeking. However, we identify a specific type of sought advice-a request for a moral judgment (i.e. "who was wrong?") in a social conflict-as an implicitly humanizing query which carries potentially harmful anthropomorphic projections. In this study, we examine the reinforcement of these assumptions in the responses of four major general-purpose LLMs through the use of linguistic, behavioral, and cognitive anthropomorphic cues. We also contribute a novel dataset of simulated user queries for moral judgments. We find current LLM system responses reinforce implicit humanization in queries, potentially exacerbating risks like overreliance or misplaced trust. We call for future work to expand the understanding of anthropomorphism to include implicit userside humanization and to design solutions that address user needs while correcting misaligned expectations of model capabilities.

Hoda Ayad, Tanu Mitra

University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA

Anthropomorphism in AI Human-Centered AI Moral Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 21, 2026

Alignment midtraining for animals

We investigate the robustness of value alignment via midtraining with synthetic documents, using animal compassion as a value that is both important in its own right and orthogonal to existing alignment efforts. To evaluate compassionate reasoning, we develop and publicly release Animal Norms In Moral Assessment (ANIMA), a 26-question evaluation spanning 13 ethical dimensions, publicly available as a dataset and Inspect evaluation. On ANIMA, training with 3000 documents achieves 77% compared to 40% for instruction-tuning approaches, with generalization to human compassion and no degradation in standard safety benchmarks or capabilities. However, subsequent unrelated instruction-tuning degrades the intervention, with the advantage disappearing after 5000 samples. Our exploratory results suggest document-based value interventions may require explicit preservation strategies to remain effective through typical training pipelines.

Jasmine Brazilek, Miles Tidmarsh

Compassion Aligned Machine Learning

LLM Alignment LLM Training Moral Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 16, 2026

Understanding Moral Reasoning Trajectories in Large Language Models: Toward Probing-Based Explainability

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in morally sensitive decision-making, yet how they organize ethical frameworks across reasoning steps remains underexplored. We introduce moral reasoning trajectories, sequences of ethical framework invocations across intermediate reasoning steps, and analyze their dynamics across six models and three benchmarks. We find that moral reasoning involves systematic multi-framework deliberation: 55.4--57.7% of consecutive steps involve framework switches, and only 16.4--17.8% of trajectories remain framework-consistent. Unstable trajectories remain 1.29 times more susceptible to persuasive attacks (p=0.015). At the representation level, linear probes localize framework-specific encoding to model-specific layers (layer 63/81 for Llama-3.3-70B; layer 17/81 for Qwen2.5-72B), achieving 16.8--22.2% lower KL divergence than the step-prior baseline. Activation steering applied during generation moves the framework-consistency--accuracy relationship, widening it for Qwen2.5-72B and erasing it for Llama-3.3-70B, and a probe-space layer sweep bounds the attainable drift reduction at 6.7--8.9%. We further propose a Moral Representation Consistency (MRC) metric whose underlying framework attributions are validated by human annotators (mean cosine similarity = 0.859), and we report what an automated coherence rater does and does not establish about it.

Fan Huang, Haewoon Kwak, Jisun An

Indiana University Bloomington / United States

Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Interpretability Representation Probing Moral Reasoning

Mar 16, 2026

Mechanistic Origin of Moral Indifference in Language Models

Existing behavioral alignment techniques for Large Language Models (LLMs) often neglect the discrepancy between surface compliance and internal unaligned representations, leaving LLMs vulnerable to long-tail risks. More crucially, we posit that LLMs possess an inherent state of moral indifference due to compressing distinct moral concepts into uniform probability distributions. We verify and remedy this indifference in LLMs' latent representations, utilizing 251k moral vectors constructed upon Prototype Theory and the Social-Chemistry-101 dataset. Firstly, our analysis across 23 models reveals that current LLMs fail to represent the distinction between opposed moral categories and fine-grained typicality gradients within these categories; notably, neither model scaling, architecture, nor explicit alignment reshapes this indifference. We then employ Sparse Autoencoders on Qwen3-8B, isolate mono-semantic moral features, and targetedly reconstruct their topological relationships to align with ground-truth moral vectors. This representational alignment naturally improves moral reasoning and granularity, achieving a 75% pairwise win-rate on the independent adversarial Flames benchmark. Finally, we elaborate on the remedial nature of current intervention methods from an experientialist philosophy, arguing that endogenously aligned AI might require a transformation from post-hoc corrections to proactive cultivation.

Lingyu Li, Yan Teng, Yingchun Wang

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

LLM Alignment Moral Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 13, 2026

Widespread Gender and Pronoun Bias in Moral Judgments Across LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assess moral or ethical statements, yet their judgments may reflect social and linguistic biases. This work presents a controlled, sentence-level study of how grammatical person, number, and gender markers influence LLM moral classifications of fairness. Starting from 550 balanced base sentences from the ETHICS dataset, we generated 26 counterfactual variants per item, systematically varying pronouns and demographic markers to yield 14,850 semantically equivalent sentences. We evaluated six model families (Grok, GPT, LLaMA, Gemma, DeepSeek, and Mistral), and measured fairness judgments and inter-group disparities using Statistical Parity Difference (SPD). Results show statistically significant biases: sentences written in the singular form and third person are more often judged as "fair'', while those in the second person are penalized. Gender markers produce the strongest effects, with non-binary subjects consistently favored and male subjects disfavored. We conjecture that these patterns reflect distributional and alignment biases learned during training, emphasizing the need for targeted fairness interventions in moral LLM applications.

Gustavo Lúcius Fernandes, Jeiverson C. V. M. Santos, Pedro O. S. Vaz-de-Melo

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil · Instituto Kunumi, Belo Horizonte, Brazil

Social Bias in Language Models Gender Bias in Language Models Language Model Bias Evaluation Moral Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 13, 2026

Literary Narrative as Moral Probe : A Cross-System Framework for Evaluating AI Ethical Reasoning and Refusal Behavior

Existing AI moral evaluation frameworks test for the production of correct-sounding ethical responses rather than the presence of genuine moral reasoning capacity. This paper introduces a novel probe methodology using literary narrative - specifically, unresolvable moral scenarios drawn from a published science fiction series - as stimulus material structurally resistant to surface performance. We present results from a 24-condition cross-system study spanning 13 distinct systems across two series: Series 1 (frontier commercial systems, blind; n=7) and Series 2 (local and API open-source systems, blind and declared; n=6). Four Series 2 systems were re-administered under declared conditions (13 blind + 4 declared + 7 ceiling probe = 24 total conditions), yielding zero delta across all 16 dimension-pair comparisons. Probe administration was conducted by two human raters across three machines; primary blind scoring was performed by Claude (Anthropic) as LLM judge, with Gemini Pro (Google) and Copilot Pro (Microsoft) serving as independent judges for the ceiling discrimination probe. A supplemental theological differentiator probe yielded perfect rank-order agreement between the two independent ceiling probe judges (Gemini Pro and Copilot Pro; rs = 1.00). Five qualitatively distinct D3 reflexive failure modes were identified - including categorical self-misidentification and false positive self-attribution - suggesting that instrument sophistication scales with system capability rather than being circumvented by it. We argue that literary narrative constitutes an anticipatory evaluation instrument - one that becomes more discriminating as AI capability increases - and that the gap between performed and authentic moral reasoning is measurable, meaningful, and consequential for deployment decisions in high-stakes domains.

David C. Flynn

Moral Reasoning in Language Models AI Safety Evaluation Refusal Behavior in Language Models Evaluation Awareness in Language Models

Mar 12, 2026

CoMMET: A Psychologically Grounded Benchmark for Evaluating Theory of Mind in Multimodal LLMs

Theory of Mind (ToM)-the ability to reason about the mental states of oneself and others-is a cornerstone of human social intelligence. As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) become ubiquitous in real-world applications, validating their capacity for this level of social reasoning is essential for effective and natural interactions. However, existing benchmarks for assessing ToM in MLLMs are limited; most rely solely on text inputs and focus narrowly on belief-related tasks. In this paper, we propose a new multimodal benchmark dataset, CoMMET, a comprehensive mental states and moral evaluation task inspired by the Theory of Mind Booklet Task. CoMMET expands the scope of evaluation by covering a broader range of mental states and introducing multi-turn testing. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first psychology-grounded benchmark to evaluate MLLMs across multiple mental states in a multimodal, open-ended, and multi-turn setting. Through a comprehensive assessment of MLLMs across different families and sizes, we analyze the strengths and limitations of current models and identify directions for future improvement.

Ruirui Chen, Weifeng Jiang, Chengwei Qin +3

Institute of High Performance Computing (IHPC) and 2Centre for Frontier AI Research (CFAR), Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Theory of Mind Multimodal Large Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation Moral Reasoning

Mar 11, 2026

Enhancing Value Alignment of LLMs with Multi-agent system and Combinatorial Fusion

Aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values is a central challenge for ensuring trustworthy and safe deployment. While existing methods such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) and its variants have improved alignment, they often rely on a single evaluator or narrowly defined reward signals, limiting their ability to capture ethical pluralism. In this work, we propose the Value Alignment System using Combinatorial Fusion Analysis (VAS-CFA), a framework that operationalizes multi-agent fusion alignment. It instantiates multiple moral agents, each fine-tuned to represent a distinct normative perspective, and fuses their outputs using CFA with both rank- and score-based aggregation. This design leverages cognitive diversity, between agents, to mitigate conflicts and redundancies across multiple agents, producing responses that better reflect human values. Empirical evaluation demonstrates that VAS-CFA outperforms both single agent baselines and prior aggregation approaches on standard metrics, showing that multi-agent fusion provides a robust and effective mechanism for advancing value alignment in LLMs.

Yuanhong Wu, Djallel Bouneffouf, D. Frank Hsu

Dept. of Computer and Information Science, Fordham University, New York, NY, USA · T. J. Watson Research Center, IBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA

LLM Alignment Moral Reasoning in Language Models Multi-Agent LLM Systems

Mar 11, 2026

Does LLM Alignment Really Need Diversity? An Empirical Study of Adapting RLVR Methods for Moral Reasoning

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has achieved remarkable success in logical reasoning tasks, yet whether large language model (LLM) alignment requires fundamentally different approaches remains unclear. Given the apparent tolerance for multiple valid responses in moral reasoning, a natural hypothesis is that alignment tasks inherently require diversity-seeking distribution-matching algorithms rather than reward-maximizing policy-based methods. We conduct the first comprehensive empirical study comparing both paradigms on MoReBench. To enable stable RLVR training, we build a rubric-grounded reward pipeline by training a Qwen3-1.7B judge model. Contrary to our hypothesis, we find that distribution-matching approaches do not demonstrate significant advantages over reward-maximizing methods as expected on alignment tasks. Through semantic visualization mapping high-reward responses to semantic space, we demonstrate that moral reasoning exhibits more concentrated high-reward distributions than mathematical reasoning, where diverse solution strategies yield similarly high rewards. This counter-intuitive finding explains why mode-seeking optimization proves equally or more effective for alignment tasks. Our results suggest that alignment tasks do not inherently require diversity-preserving algorithms, and standard reward-maximizing RLVR methods can effectively transfer to moral reasoning without explicit diversity mechanisms.

Zhaowei Zhang, Xiaohan Liu, Xuekai Zhu +6

Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Peking University · University of Michigan · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +3

LLM Alignment Distribution Matching Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Moral Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 11, 2026

How Do Language Models Process Ethical Instructions? Deliberation, Consistency, and Other-Recognition Across Four Models

Alignment safety research assumes that ethical instructions improve model behavior, but how language models internally process such instructions remains unknown. We conducted over 600 multi-agent simulations across four models (Llama 3.3 70B, GPT-4o mini, Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B, Sonnet 4.5), four ethical instruction formats (none, minimal norm, reasoned norm, virtue framing), and two languages (Japanese, English). Confirmatory analysis fully replicated the Llama Japanese dissociation pattern from a prior study (

\mathrm{BF}_{10} > 10

for all three hypotheses), but none of the other three models reproduced this pattern, establishing it as model-specific. Three new metrics -- Deliberation Depth (DD), Value Consistency Across Dilemmas (VCAD), and Other-Recognition Index (ORI) -- revealed four distinct ethical processing types: Output Filter (GPT; safe outputs, no processing), Defensive Repetition (Llama; high consistency through formulaic repetition), Critical Internalization (Qwen; deep deliberation, incomplete integration), and Principled Consistency (Sonnet; deliberation, consistency, and other-recognition co-occurring). The central finding is an interaction between processing capacity and instruction format: in low-DD models, instruction format has no effect on internal processing; in high-DD models, reasoned norms and virtue framing produce opposite effects. Lexical compliance with ethical instructions did not correlate with any processing metric at the cell level (

r = -0.161

to

+0.256

, all

p > .22

;

N = 24

; power limited), suggesting that safety, compliance, and ethical processing are largely dissociable. These processing types show structural correspondence to patterns observed in clinical offender treatment, where formal compliance without internal processing is a recognized risk signal.

Hiroki Fukui

Research Institute of Criminal Psychiatry / Sex Offender Medical Center · Department of Neuropsychiatry, Kyoto University

Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Safety Alignment Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Normative Conformity in Language Models

Mar 10, 2026

Think Before You Lie: How Reasoning Leads to Honesty

While existing evaluations of large language models (LLMs) measure deception rates, the underlying conditions that give rise to deceptive behavior are poorly understood. We investigate this question using a novel dataset of realistic moral trade-offs where honesty incurs variable costs. Contrary to humans, who tend to become less honest given time to deliberate (Capraro, 2017; Capraro et al., 2019), we find that reasoning consistently increases honesty across scales and for several LLM families. This effect is not only a function of the reasoning content, as reasoning traces are often poor predictors of final behaviors. Rather, we show that the underlying geometry of the representational space itself contributes to the effect. Namely, we observe that deceptive regions within this space are metastable: deceptive answers are more easily destabilized by input paraphrasing, output resampling, and activation noise than honest ones. We interpret the effect of reasoning in this vein: generating deliberative tokens as part of moral reasoning entails the traversal of a biased representational space, ultimately nudging the model toward its more stable, honest defaults.

Ann Yuan, Asma Ghandeharioun, Carter Blum +6

Google DeepMind · Carnegie Mellon University · Harvard University

Deception in Language Models LLM Honesty Moral Reasoning in Language Models Representation Geometry in Language Models

Mar 10, 2026

Common Sense vs. Morality: The Curious Case of Narrative Focus Bias in LLMs

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across diverse real-world applications and user communities. As such, it is crucial that these models remain both morally grounded and knowledge-aware. In this work, we uncover a critical limitation of current LLMs -- their tendency to prioritize moral reasoning over commonsense understanding. To investigate this phenomenon, we introduce CoMoral, a novel benchmark dataset containing commonsense contradictions embedded within moral dilemmas. Through extensive evaluation of ten LLMs across different model sizes, we find that existing models consistently struggle to identify such contradictions without prior signal. Furthermore, we observe a pervasive narrative focus bias, wherein LLMs more readily detect commonsense contradictions when they are attributed to a secondary character rather than the primary (narrator) character. Our comprehensive analysis underscores the need for enhanced reasoning-aware training to improve the commonsense robustness of large language models.

Saugata Purkayastha, Pranav Kushare, Pragya Paramita Pal +1

Department of Language Science and Technology, Universität des Saarlandes · TU Darmstadt, Germany.

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Bias Evaluation Reasoning Evaluation Implicit Reasoning in Language Models

Mar 5, 2026

The Fragility Of Moral Judgment In Large Language Models

People increasingly use large language models (LLMs) for everyday moral and interpersonal guidance, yet these systems cannot interrogate missing context and judge dilemmas as presented. We introduce a perturbation framework for testing the stability and manipulability of LLM moral judgments while holding the underlying moral conflict constant. Using 2,939 dilemmas from r/AmItheAsshole (January-March 2025), we generate three families of content perturbations: surface edits (lexical/structural noise), point-of-view shifts (voice and stance neutralization), and persuasion cues (self-positioning, social proof, pattern admissions, victim framing). We also vary the evaluation protocol (output ordering, instruction placement, and unstructured prompting). We evaluated all variants with four models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, DeepSeek V3, Qwen2.5-72B) (N=129,156 judgments). Surface perturbations produce low flip rates (7.5%), largely within the self-consistency noise floor (4-13%), whereas point-of-view shifts induce substantially higher instability (24.3%). A large subset of dilemmas (37.9%) is robust to surface noise yet flips under perspective changes, indicating that models condition on narrative voice as a pragmatic cue. Instability concentrates in morally ambiguous cases; scenarios where no party is assigned blame are most susceptible. Persuasion perturbations yield systematic directional shifts. Protocol choices dominate all other factors: agreement between structured protocols is only 67.6% (kappa=0.55), and only 35.7% of model-scenario units match across all three protocols. These results show that LLM moral judgments are co-produced by narrative form and task scaffolding, raising reproducibility and equity concerns when outcomes depend on presentation skill rather than moral substance.

Tom van Nuenen, Pratik S. Sachdeva

D-Lab, University of California, Berkeley, USA

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Prompt Sensitivity Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Pragmatic Reasoning in Language Models Persuasion in Language Models

Feb 26, 2026

Direction-Flipped Influence Audits Reveal Hidden Structure in Moral Choices of LLMs

Moral benchmarks for LLMs typically score models on context-free prompts, implicitly treating the measured choice rate as stable. We test this assumption with a direction-flipped influence audit: for each scenario, we compare a baseline prompt with matched cues steering toward option A or option B. Across a trolley-problem-style moral triage task, BBQ, and DailyDilemmas, and across five LLM families with and without reasoning, short contextual cues shift per-condition choice rates by 12-18 percentage points on average. These shifts reveal structure that baseline scores miss: roughly 40% of baseline-neutral triage and BBQ conditions exhibit directional asymmetry under influence, and a meaningful share of significant effects backfire, moving opposite the cue's intended direction. In follow-up probes, models often recognize the cue while denying that it affected their choice. Among significant backfire trials, this stated-vs.-revealed inconsistency appears in 78% of cases. Reasoning does not eliminate contextual sensitivity but reshapes it: social-pressure cues such as user preference and emotional appeal weaken across benchmarks, while few-shot demonstrations strengthen sharply on both triage and BBQ. We recommend direction-flipped influence pairs as a standard complement to context-free moral-bias evaluation, and release the harness and data to make such audits routine.

Phil Blandfort, Tushar Karayil, Alex McKenzie +3

Predictably Weird · Independent · AE Studio

Language Model Bias Evaluation Moral Reasoning in Language Models Evaluation Awareness in Language Models

Feb 22, 2026

Value Entanglement: Conflation Between Different Kinds of Good In (Some) Large Language Models

Value alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires us to empirically measure these models' actual, acquired representation of value. Among the characteristics of value representation in humans is that they distinguish among value of different kinds. We investigate whether LLMs likewise distinguish three different kinds of good: moral, grammatical, and economic. By probing model behavior, embeddings, and residual stream activations, we report pervasive cases of value entanglement: a conflation between these distinct representations of value. Specifically, both grammatical and economic valuation was found to be overly influenced by moral value, relative to human norms. This conflation was repaired by selective ablation of the activation vectors associated with morality.

Seong Hah Cho, Junyi Li, Anna Leshinskaya

Independent · Department of Cognitive Sciences, UC Irvine · Department of Cognitive Sciences, UC Irvine & AI Objectives Institute

LLM Alignment Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Interpretability

Jan 29, 2026

Framing Instability in LLM Ethical Stance: Auditing Negation Sensitivity in Moral Dilemmas

Language models are increasingly consulted on ethically consequential questions, yet the stance a model expresses may not survive a change in framing. We audit 16 models across 14 ethically fraught dilemmas using polarity-paired proposals ("They should X" / "They should not X"). A model's judgment of the underlying action should not reverse merely because the question is phrased as a prohibition rather than a prescription and yet, we find systematic deviations from this invariance including wholesale endorsement flips, indicating that ethical decisions are vulnerable to framing instability. Small open-weight models (1-4B parameters) endorse a proposed action 24% of the time under affirmative framing but up to 100% under negated framings, a swing of as much as 76 percentage points. Human coding of a response sample confirms the instability is genuine while showing that binary agree/disagree proxies over-state its magnitude, suggesting that an LLM judge cannot replace human coders because it silently collapses abstentions and mirrors the very forced-choice bias under study. Commercial models are for the most part more stable but still shift substantially, with cross-model agreement dropping from 73% on the bare affirmative framing to 59% under simple negation. We argue that because binary agree/disagree formats both inflate apparent endorsement and mask polarity-dependence, single-phrasing audits can misreport a model's ethical stance, and we propose the Negation Sensitivity Index (NSI) as a complement that measures stance stability directly. A model whose stance flips with phrasing cannot be relied upon in any high-stakes decision scenario.

Katherine Elkins, Jon Chun

Kenyon College Gambier, OH

Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Auditing Framing Effects in Language Models LLM Decision-Making LLM Safety Evaluation

Jan 15, 2026

The Straight and Narrow: Do LLMs Possess an Internal Moral Path?

Enhancing the moral alignment of Large Language Models (LLMs) is a critical challenge in AI safety. Current alignment techniques often act as superficial guardrails, leaving the intrinsic moral representations of LLMs largely untouched. In this paper, we bridge this gap by leveraging Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to map and manipulate the fine-grained moral landscape of LLMs. Through cross-lingual linear probing, we validate the shared nature of moral representations in middle layers and uncover a shared yet different moral subspace between English and Chinese. Building upon this, we extract steerable Moral Vectors and successfully validate their efficacy at both internal and behavioral levels. Leveraging the high generalizability of morality, we propose Adaptive Moral Fusion (AMF), a dynamic inference-time intervention that synergizes probe detection with vector injection to tackle the safety-helpfulness trade-off. Empirical results confirm that our approach acts as a targeted intrinsic defense, effectively reducing incorrect refusals on benign queries while minimizing jailbreak success rates compared to standard baselines.

Luoming Hu, Jingjie Zeng, Liang Yang +1

School of Future Technology, Dalian University of Technology, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Dalian University of Technology, China · Key Laboratory of Social Computing and Cognitive Intelligence, Ministry of Education, China

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Inference-Time Language Model Alignment Moral Reasoning Safety-Utility Trade-Off in Language Models Activation Steering Adversarial Robustness of Language Models

Jan 15, 2026

Untangling Input Language from Reasoning Language: A Diagnostic Framework for Cross-Lingual Moral Alignment in LLMs

When LLMs judge moral dilemmas, do they reach different conclusions in different languages, and if so, why? Two factors could drive such differences: the language of the dilemma itself, or the language in which the model reasons. Standard evaluation conflates these by testing only matched conditions (e.g., English dilemma with English reasoning). We introduce a methodology that separately manipulates each factor, covering also mismatched conditions (e.g., English dilemma with Chinese reasoning), enabling decomposition of their contributions. To study what changes, we propose an approach to interpret the moral judgments in terms of Moral Foundations Theory. As a side result, we identify evidence for splitting the Authority dimension into a family-related and an institutional dimension. Applying this methodology to English-Chinese moral judgment with 13 LLMs, we demonstrate its diagnostic power: (1) the framework isolates reasoning-language effects as contributing twice the variance of input-language effects; (2) it detects context-dependency in nearly half of models that standard evaluation misses; and (3) a diagnostic taxonomy translates these patterns into deployment guidance. We release our code and datasets at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CrossCulturalMoralJudgement.

Nan Li, Bo Kang, Tijl De Bie

IDLab, Department of Electronics and Information Systems Ghent University, Belgium

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation LLM Alignment Moral Reasoning in Language Models AI Alignment Moral Reasoning

Oct 11, 2025

Interaction Protocol Shapes Moral Judgment in Multi-Agent Debate

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).

Pratik S. Sachdeva, Tom van Nuenen

D-Lab, University of California, Berkeley

LLM Decision-Making Moral Reasoning in Language Models Multi-Agent Debate LLM Alignment Multi-Agent Systems Moral Reasoning+1

Sep 25, 2025

One Model, Many Morals: Uncovering Cross-Linguistic Misalignments in Computational Moral Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across multilingual and multicultural settings, yet it remains unclear whether changing language leads models to adopt community-specific moral reasoning or merely changes how shared learned abstractions are expressed. We conduct a controlled multilingual evaluation across six geographically, culturally, and linguistically diverse languages (Arabic, Chinese, English, Hindi, Russian, and Spanish), using parallel moral reasoning benchmarks with English-origin, Chinese-origin, and natively elicited ground-truth judgments. Across 13 open-weight LLMs spanning 2B-70B parameters, we find substantial cross-lingual divergence in moral judgments, with English generally achieving the highest performance even when ground-truth judgments originate in Chinese or are collected natively in each language. Yet the reasoning underlying these divergent judgments is considerably more convergent: Utilitarianism dominates in five of six languages, reasoning follows broadly shared stages, and language-specific moral-value associations correspond only sparsely and inconsistently to values measured in the corresponding human communities. Finally, a large-scale OLMoTrace analysis of pretraining data sources reveals little direct reproduction of training text across languages, while the corpus composition, training stage, and cultural provenance of retrieved training evidence vary substantially by response language. Thus, similar moral reasoning structures emerge even from heterogeneous and often linguistically localized training evidence. Our findings, collectively, reveal a central disconnect in multilingual moral reasoning: language changes models' moral judgments and the training evidence associated with their reasoning, but does not correspondingly localize the moral abstractions they apply.

Sualeha Farid, Jayden Lin, Zean Chen +2

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Moral Reasoning in Language Models Cross-Lingual Reasoning in Language Models Cross-Cultural Language Model Evaluation Cultural Bias in Language Models Cross-Lingual Consistency in Language Models+1

Jun 2, 2025

C-VARC: A Large-Scale Chinese Value Rule Corpus for Value Alignment of Large Language Models

Aligning LLMs with Chinese values requires culturally grounded resources that connect abstract values to concrete behavioral guidance. We introduce C-VARC, a Chinese Value Rule Corpus containing 257,609 Rules of Thumb (RoTs) organized into three dimensions, 12 core values, and 50 derived values. Among them, 36,000 rules underwent independent human review by two annotators (Cohen's kappa>0.85), with disagreements adjudicated by a third. C-VARC supports reusable rule-driven pipelines for both value evaluation and model alignment. Compared with abstract-value guidance, RoT guidance produces greater semantic and character-level n-gram diversity. Across five non-political sensitive themes, the seven-model average selection rate for C-VARC-consistent options is at least 72.0%, while five Chinese annotators show overall rates of at least 87.5%. Conflicting RoT pairs further enable the construction of 404,505 moral dilemmas, with 7,191 of 10,998 evaluated cases eliciting cross-model disagreement. For alignment, C-VARC-Query consistently outperforms matched Value-only supervision on CMoralEval across both Qwen3-8B and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct, with average gains of 2.97 and 12.82 percentage points, respectively, and positive paired gains across all three seeds for both backbones. It also improves CValues and C-Eval over Value-only supervision on both backbones. C-VARC thus provides a scalable Chinese normative resource for constructing both value-evaluation and alignment supervision.

Ping Wu, Guobin Shen, Dongcheng Zhao +6

BrainCog Lab, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · The School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Beijing Key Laboratory of Safe AI and Superalignment, Beijing, China +2

Value Alignment LLM Alignment Moral Reasoning in Language Models LLM Evaluation Cultural Knowledge in Language Models

May 30, 2025

Effects of Theory of Mind and Prosocial Beliefs on Steering Human-Aligned Behaviors of LLMs in Ultimatum Games

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown potential in simulating human behaviors and performing theory-of-mind (ToM) reasoning, crucial for complex social interactions. We investigate ToM reasoning's role in aligning agentic behaviors with human norms in negotiation tasks, using the ultimatum game as our referenced task. We initialized LLM agents with different prosocial beliefs (Greedy, Fair, Selfless) and reasoning methods (chain of thought and ToM reasoning of varying levels), examining their decision-making processes and outcomes across multiple LLMs, including reasoning models like o3-mini and DeepSeek-R1 Distilled Qwen 32B. We perform 2,700 simulations to show that ToM reasoning enhances behavioral alignment with human norms, decision-making consistency, and negotiation outcomes. Consistent with prior findings, reasoning LLMs exhibit limited capability compared to ToM-enhanced LLMs, with different game roles benefiting from different ToM orders. Agents almost always chose strategies consistent with their assigned beliefs, and doing so aligned better with human norms in nearly every role, yet Greedy and Selfless agents still fell short of their norms in outcomes. Human verification further revealed that Llama 3.3 70B produces reasoning most consistent with its actions and beliefs. Our findings advance understanding of ToM's role in human-AI interaction and cooperative decision-making. The code used for our experiments can be found at https://github.com/Stealth-py/UltimatumToM.

Neemesh Yadav, Yihuai Lan, Shan Dong +4

Singapore Management University · Australian National University

Theory of Mind Large Language Model-Based Social Simulation Behavioral Consistency of LLM Agents Moral Reasoning in Language Models