Computational ethics

Edmond Awad¹, Sydney Levine², Michael Anderson³, Susan Leigh Anderson⁴, Vincent Conitzer⁵, M J Crockett⁶, Jim A C Everett⁷, Theodoros Evgeniou⁸, Alison Gopnik⁹, Julian C Jamison¹⁰, Tae Wan Kim¹¹, S Matthew Liao¹², Michelle N Meyer¹³, John Mikhail¹⁴, Kweku Opoku-Agyemang¹⁵, Jana Schaich Borg¹⁶, Juliana Schroeder¹⁷, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong¹⁸, Marija Slavkovik¹⁹, Josh B Tenenbaum²⁰

Affiliations

¹ Department of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Institute for Data Science and AI, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Center for Humans and Machines, Max-Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: e.awad@exeter.ac.uk.
² Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA; Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Electronic address: smlevine@mit.edu.
³ Department of Computer Science, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA.
⁴ Department of Philosophy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
⁵ Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
⁶ Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
⁷ School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
⁸ INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France; Tremau, Paris, France.
⁹ Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Global Priorities Institute, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
¹¹ Ethics Group, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
¹² Center for Bioethics, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
¹³ Center for Translational Bioethics and Health Care Policy, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA; Steele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA; Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA.
¹⁴ Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA.
¹⁵ International Growth Centre, London School of Economics, London, UK; Machine Learning X Doing, Toronto, ON, Canada; Development Economics X, Toronto, ON, Canada.
¹⁶ Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
¹⁷ Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
¹⁸ Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
¹⁹ Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
²⁰ Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA; Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.

PMID: 35365430
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.02.009

Free article

Review

Computational ethics

Edmond Awad et al. Trends Cogn Sci. 2022 May.

Free article

. 2022 May;26(5):388-405.

doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.02.009. Epub 2022 Mar 29.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Institute for Data Science and AI, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Center for Humans and Machines, Max-Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: e.awad@exeter.ac.uk.
² Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA; Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Electronic address: smlevine@mit.edu.
³ Department of Computer Science, University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT, USA.
⁴ Department of Philosophy, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA.
⁵ Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Economics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Institute for Ethics in AI, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
⁶ Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
⁷ School of Psychology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
⁸ INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France; Tremau, Paris, France.
⁹ Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
¹⁰ Department of Economics, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; Global Priorities Institute, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
¹¹ Ethics Group, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
¹² Center for Bioethics, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
¹³ Center for Translational Bioethics and Health Care Policy, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA; Steele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA; Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, Scranton, PA, USA.
¹⁴ Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC, USA.
¹⁵ International Growth Centre, London School of Economics, London, UK; Machine Learning X Doing, Toronto, ON, Canada; Development Economics X, Toronto, ON, Canada.
¹⁶ Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
¹⁷ Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
¹⁸ Department of Philosophy, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Duke Institute for Brain Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA; Kenan Institute for Ethics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
¹⁹ Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway.
²⁰ Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA, USA; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA; Center for Brains, Minds, and Machines, MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.

PMID: 35365430
DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2022.02.009

Abstract

Technological advances are enabling roles for machines that present novel ethical challenges. The study of 'AI ethics' has emerged to confront these challenges, and connects perspectives from philosophy, computer science, law, and economics. Less represented in these interdisciplinary efforts is the perspective of cognitive science. We propose a framework - computational ethics - that specifies how the ethical challenges of AI can be partially addressed by incorporating the study of human moral decision-making. The driver of this framework is a computational version of reflective equilibrium (RE), an approach that seeks coherence between considered judgments and governing principles. The framework has two goals: (i) to inform the engineering of ethical AI systems, and (ii) to characterize human moral judgment and decision-making in computational terms. Working jointly towards these two goals will create the opportunity to integrate diverse research questions, bring together multiple academic communities, uncover new interdisciplinary research topics, and shed light on centuries-old philosophical questions.

Keywords: AI ethics; computation; ethics; machine ethics; moral cognition; moral psychology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of interests The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Publication types

Actions
Actions

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources
- ClinicalKey
- Elsevier Science

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Computational ethics

Affiliations

Computational ethics

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources