Auditing the Ethical Logic of Generative AI Models

As generative AI models become increasingly integrated into high-stakes domains, the need for robust methods to evaluate their ethical reasoning becomes increasingly important. This paper introduces a five-dimensional audit model -- assessing Analytic Quality, Breadth of Ethical Considerations, Depth of Explanation, Consistency, and Decisiveness -- to evaluate the ethical logic of leading large language models (LLMs). Drawing on traditions from applied ethics and higher-order thinking, we present a multi-battery prompt approach, including novel ethical dilemmas, to probe the models' reasoning across diverse contexts. We benchmark seven major LLMs finding that while models generally converge on ethical decisions, they vary in explanatory rigor and moral prioritization. Chain-of-Thought prompting and reasoning-optimized models significantly enhance performance on our audit metrics. This study introduces a scalable methodology for ethical benchmarking of AI systems and highlights the potential for AI to complement human moral reasoning in complex decision-making contexts.

Analyzing the Ethical Logic of Six Large Language Models

This study examines the ethical reasoning of six prominent generative large language models: OpenAI GPT-4o, Meta LLaMA 3.1, Perplexity, Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Google Gemini, and Mistral 7B. The research explores how these models articulate and apply ethical logic, particularly in response to moral dilemmas such as the Trolley Problem, and Heinz Dilemma. Departing from traditional alignment studies, the study adopts an explainability-transparency framework, prompting models to explain their ethical reasoning. This approach is analyzed through three established ethical typologies: the consequentialist-deontological analytic, Moral Foundations Theory, and the Kohlberg Stages of Moral Development Model. Findings reveal that LLMs exhibit largely convergent ethical logic, marked by a rationalist, consequentialist emphasis, with decisions often prioritizing harm minimization and fairness. Despite similarities in pre-training and model architecture, a mixture of nuanced and significant differences in ethical reasoning emerge across models, reflecting variations in fine-tuning and post-training processes. The models consistently display erudition, caution, and self-awareness, presenting ethical reasoning akin to a graduate-level discourse in moral philosophy. In striking uniformity these systems all describe their ethical reasoning as more sophisticated than what is characteristic of typical human moral logic.