arXiv preprint ·
Formalizing the Moral Evaluation of Speech Acts: Truthfulness, Lies and Ethical Dilemmas
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
In life-or-death situations, a benevolent lie may appear more moral than telling the truth. Yet such lies can backfire, producing unintended and sometimes fatal consequences. This tension, famously disputed by Kant and Constant in 1797, applies not only to lying but to assertive speech acts in general, raising the question of which utterance should be chosen when moral stakes are high. We present a logical framework for the ethical evaluation of speech-act utterances based on agents' beliefs. Implemented in Answer Set Programming (ASP), the framework assesses utterances under deontologism, consequentialism, and principialism, and is illustrated on Sartre's The Wall (1939), a reworking of that controversy in which lying leads alternately to rescue and to death. Our setting is general by design: as two variants show, accommodating a new moral situation amounts to adjusting parameters, not rules.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
AIProver: Agentic Auto-Formalization of Mathematical Research via Certificate-Driven Evolving Harness
RAOA: Alternating-Operator Neural Computation with Programmable Radio Propagation
Scenario-Based Compositional Statistical Model Checking for Safety Specifications
VeriPy Source-Preserving Verification and Compatibility Checking for Python Components
Impact of Data Augmentation on Confidence Calibration in Melanoma Classification
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.