mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Is It Acceptable to Break the Rules? Knowledge Representation of Moral Judgement Based on Empirical Data

arXiv 2201.07763 ↗First posted 19 Jan 2022cs.AI cs.CYcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

One of the most remarkable things about the human moral mind is its flexibility. We can make moral judgments about cases we have never seen before. We can decide that pre-established rules should be broken. We can invent novel rules on the fly. Capturing this flexibility is one of the central challenges in developing AI systems that can interpret and produce human-like moral judgment. This paper details the results of a study of real-world decision makers who judge whether it is acceptable to break a well-established norm: ``no cutting in line.'' We gather data on how human participants judge the acceptability of line-cutting in a range of scenarios. Then, in order to effectively embed these reasoning capabilities into a machine, we propose a method for modeling them using a preference-based structure, which captures a novel modification to standard ``dual process'' theories of moral judgment.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 119 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 19 Jan 2022.

Builds on

16 of 119 references.

References · 16

  1. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  2. 2016Concrete Problems in AI Safetycited by 1,582
  3. 2021Can Machines Learn Morality? The Delphi Experimentcited by 140
  4. 2016Research Priorities for Robust and Beneficial Artificial Intelligencecited by 74
  5. 2020Thinking Fast and Slow in AIcited by 67
  6. 2017A Voting-Based System for Ethical Decision Makingcited by 55
  7. 2015The social dilemma of autonomous vehiclescited by 47
  8. 2020Adapting a Kidney Exchange Algorithm to Align with Human Valuescited by 36
  9. 2018Building Ethically Bounded AIcited by 22
  10. 2018Building Ethics into Artificial Intelligencecited by 19
  11. 2018Incorporating Behavioral Constraints in Online AI Systemscited by 16
  12. 2018A Computational Model of Commonsense Moral Decision Makingcited by 13
4 more
  1. 2021Making Human-Like Trade-offs in Constrained Environments by Learning from Demonstrationscited by 7
  2. 2014The Computational Complexity of Dominance and Consistency in CP-Netscited by 5
  3. 2019Voting with Random Classifiers (VORACE): Theoretical and Experimental Analysiscited by 5
  4. 2018Teaching Social Behavior through Human Reinforcement for Ad hoc Teamwork -The STAR Frameworkcited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 0; 2024: 1; 2025: 1.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes
  2. 2026Beyond Binary Moral Judgment: Modeling Ethical Pluralism in AI
  3. 2026The Alignment Target Problem: Divergent Moral Judgments of Humans, AI Systems, and Their Designers
  4. 2026Scaling Laws for Moral Machine Judgment in Large Language Models
  5. 2026Position: Evaluations of AI Moral Reasoning Still Miss Half of the Picture
  6. 2024Procedural Dilemma Generation for Evaluating Moral Reasoning in Humans and Language Models
  7. 2026CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models
  8. 2026Are LLMs Bad at Moral Reasoning?