mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners?

arXiv 2505.21479 ↗First posted 27 May 2025cs.CLcited by 12

On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation

Abstract (arXiv)

As AI systems increasingly navigate applications in healthcare, law, and governance, understanding how they handle ethically complex scenarios becomes critical. Previous work has mainly examined the moral judgments in large language models (LLMs), rather than their underlying moral reasoning process. In contrast, we focus on a large-scale analysis of the moral reasoning traces provided by LLMs. Furthermore, unlike prior work that attempted to draw inferences from only a handful of moral dilemmas, our study leverages over 600 distinct trolley problems as probes for revealing the reasoning patterns that emerge within different LLMs. We introduce and test a taxonomy of moral rationales to systematically classify reasoning traces according to two main normative ethical theories: consequentialism and deontology. Our analysis reveals that LLM chains-of-thought tend to favor deontological principles based on moral obligations, while post-hoc explanations shift notably toward consequentialist rationales that emphasize utility. Our framework provides a foundation for understanding how LLMs process and articulate ethical considerations, an important step toward safe and interpretable deployment of LLMs in high-stakes decision-making environments. Our code is available at https://github.com/keenansamway/moral-lens .

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning benchmarks and evaluation, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 15 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 May 2025.

Builds on

15 of 56 references.

Closest ancestors · 3

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Procedural Knowledge in Pretraining Drives Reasoning in Large Language Models19 Nov
  2. 2023Probing the Moral Development of Large Language Models through Defining Issues Test23 Sep
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models27 Feb

Other references · 12

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  3. 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
  4. 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
  5. 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
  6. 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 340
  7. 2024Evaluation of OpenAI o1: Opportunities and Challenges of AGIcited by 127
  8. 2023Moral Foundations of Large Language Modelscited by 85
  9. 2023EQ-Bench: An Emotional Intelligence Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 80
  10. 2025Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIscited by 67
  11. 2024MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMscited by 50
  12. 2024Large-scale moral machine experiment on large language modelscited by 9

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 9.

12 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analyzing Moral Foundation Priorities in Large Language Models with a Multi-Framework Approach
  2. 2025"Pull or Not to Pull?'': Investigating Moral Biases in Leading Large Language Models Across Ethical Dilemmas
  3. 2025One Model, Many Morals: Uncovering Cross-Linguistic Misalignments in Computational Moral Reasoning
  4. 2026Beyond Binary Moral Judgment: Modeling Ethical Pluralism in AI
  5. 2025Beyond Ethical Alignment: Evaluating LLMs as Artificial Moral Assistants
  6. 2026CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models
  7. 2026Incoherent by Design? On the Moral Self-Consistency of LLMs
  8. 2025The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis