# Ethical Frameworks and Computer Security Trolley Problems: Foundations for Conversations

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.14326 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.14326/

## Key facts

- Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 28 Feb 2023.

## Built on by (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Great, Now Write an Article About That: The Crescendo Multi-Turn LLM Jailbreak Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01833/) (2024)
- [LLM Platform Security: Applying a Systematic Evaluation Framework to OpenAI's ChatGPT Plugins](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.10254/) (2023)
- [Malla: Demystifying Real-world Large Language Model Integrated Malicious Services](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.03315/) (2024)
- [Particip-AI: A Democratic Surveying Framework for Anticipating Future AI Use Cases, Harms and Benefits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14791/) (2024)
- ["Unlimited Realm of Exploration and Experimentation": Methods and Motivations of AI-Generated Sexual Content Creators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.21028/) (2026)
- [A Decade of Privacy-Relevant Android App Reviews: Large Scale Trends](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.02292/) (2024)
- [NLP Security and Ethics, in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06669/) (2025)
- [Consiglieres in the Shadow: Understanding the Use of Uncensored Large Language Models in Cybercrimes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12622/) (2025)
- [An End-to-End Framework for Functionality-Embedded Provenance Graph Construction and Threat Interpretation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.17100/) (2026)
- [Profiling for Pennies: Unveiling the Privacy Iceberg of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06232/) (2026)
- [Ethics Training Agents: Facilitating Group-Based Ethics Education with Role-Playing and Discussion for Ethical Reflection and Exploration](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.11529/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The computer security research community regularly tackles ethical questions. The field of ethics / moral philosophy has for centuries considered what it means to be "morally good" or at least "morally allowed / acceptable". Among philosophy's contributions are (1) frameworks for evaluating the morality of actions -- including the well-established consequentialist and deontological frameworks -- and (2) scenarios (like trolley problems) featuring moral dilemmas that can facilitate discussion about and intellectual inquiry into different perspectives on moral reasoning and decision-making. In a classic trolley problem, consequentialist and deontological analyses may render different opinions. In this research, we explicitly make and explore connections between moral questions in computer security research and ethics / moral philosophy through the creation and analysis of trolley problem-like computer security-themed moral dilemmas and, in doing so, we seek to contribute to conversations among security researchers about the morality of security research-related decisions. We explicitly do not seek to define what is morally right or wrong, nor do we argue for one framework over another. Indeed, the consequentialist and deontological frameworks that we center, in addition to coming to different conclusions for our scenarios, have significant limitations. Instead, by offering our scenarios and by comparing two different approaches to ethics, we strive to contribute to how the computer security research field considers and converses about ethical questions, especially when there are different perspectives on what is morally right or acceptable.