mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Computational Complexity of Ethics: Moral Tractability for Minds and Machines

arXiv 2302.04218 ↗First posted 8 Feb 2023cs.CC cs.AIcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Why should moral philosophers, moral psychologists, and machine ethicists care about computational complexity? Debates on whether artificial intelligence (AI) can or should be used to solve problems in ethical domains have mainly been driven by what AI can or cannot do in terms of human capacities. In this paper, we tackle the problem from the other end by exploring what kind of moral machines are possible based on what computational systems can or cannot do. To do so, we analyze normative ethics through the lens of computational complexity. First, we introduce computational complexity for the uninitiated reader and discuss how the complexity of ethical problems can be framed within Marr's three levels of analysis. We then study a range of ethical problems based on consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, with the aim of elucidating the complexity associated with the problems themselves (e.g., due to combinatorics, uncertainty, strategic dynamics), the computational methods employed (e.g., probability, logic, learning), and the available resources (e.g., time, knowledge, learning). The results indicate that most problems the normative frameworks pose lead to tractability issues in every category analyzed. Our investigation also provides several insights about the computational nature of normative ethics, including the differences between rule- and outcome-based moral strategies, and the implementation-variance with regard to moral resources. We then discuss the consequences complexity results have for the prospect of moral machines in virtue of the trade-off between optimality and efficiency. Finally, we elucidate how computational complexity can be used to inform both philosophical and cognitive-psychological research on human morality by advancing the Moral Tractability Thesis (MTT).

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 16 of its 185 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 8 Feb 2023.

Builds on

16 of 185 references.

References · 16

  1. 2019Introduction to Multi-Armed Banditscited by 481
  2. 2020Artificial Intelligence, Values and Alignmentcited by 448
  3. 2017Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Artcited by 315
  4. 2013The Complexity of Decentralized Control of Markov Decision Processescited by 231
  5. 2019Self-Driving Cars: A Surveycited by 148
  6. 2017Autonomous Agents Modelling Other Agents: A Comprehensive Survey and Open Problemscited by 131
  7. 2021A Theory of Consciousness from a Theoretical Computer Science Perspective: Insights from the Conscious Turing Machinecited by 22
  8. 2013From average case complexity to improper learning complexitycited by 16
  9. 2020Implementations in Machine Ethics: A Surveycited by 16
  10. 2022The no-free-lunch theorems of supervised learningcited by 16
  11. 2013What is Decidable about Partially Observable Markov Decision Processes with ω-Regular Objectivescited by 14
  12. 2014Monte Carlo Sampling Methods for Approximating Interactive POMDPscited by 12
4 more
  1. 2017On Automating the Doctrine of Double Effectcited by 7
  2. 2018Toward the Engineering of Virtuous Machinescited by 7
  3. 2022Artificial virtuous agents in a multiagent tragedy of the commonscited by 3
  4. 2015Coordination Complexity: Small Information Coordinating Large Populationscited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.

2 papers.