Are Language Models Consequentialist or Deontological Moral Reasoners?
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
- 2024Procedural Knowledge in Pretraining Drives Reasoning in Large Language Models19 Nov
- 2023Probing the Moral Development of Large Language Models through Defining Issues Test23 Sep
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models27 Feb
Other references · 12
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2025DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learningcited by 6,330
- 2024OpenAI o1 System Cardcited by 1,244
- 2024Sleeper Agents: Training Deceptive LLMs that Persist Through Safety Trainingcited by 529
- 20242 OLMo 2 Furiouscited by 340
- 2024Evaluation of OpenAI o1: Opportunities and Challenges of AGIcited by 127
- 2023Moral Foundations of Large Language Modelscited by 85
- 2023EQ-Bench: An Emotional Intelligence Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 80
- 2025Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIscited by 67
- 2024MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMscited by 50
- 2024Large-scale moral machine experiment on large language modelscited by 9
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 9.
12 papers.
- 2025MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomescited by 23
- 2025ManagerBench: Evaluating the Safety-Pragmatism Trade-off in Autonomous LLMscited by 6
- 2026Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering?cited by 5
- 2026Evaluating Cooperation in LLM Social Groups through Elected Leadershipcited by 3
- 2026Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graphcited by 1
- 2025Measuring Moral LLM Responses in Multilingual Capacitiescited by 0
- 2026Reinforcing privacy reasoning in LLMs via normative simulacra from fictioncited by 0
- 2026Staying with the Uncertainty: Uncertainty-Scaffolding Strategies for Artificial Moral Advisors in LLM-to-LLM Simulated Conversationscited by 0
- 2026Are LLMs Bad at Moral Reasoning?cited by 0
- 2026MET: Theory-Grounded and Culture-Aware Multilingual Moral Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026Position: Evaluations of AI Moral Reasoning Still Miss Half of the Picturecited by 0
- 2026Shallow Beliefs: Synthetic document finetuning does not inoculate against emergent misalignment from reward hackingcited by 0
- 2026Shallow Beliefs: Synthetic document finetuning does not inoculate against emergent misalignment from reward hacking14 Sep 2026
- 2026MET: Theory-Grounded and Culture-Aware Multilingual Moral Reasoning13 Jul 2026
- 2026Are LLMs Bad at Moral Reasoning?10 Jun 2026
- 2026Staying with the Uncertainty: Uncertainty-Scaffolding Strategies for Artificial Moral Advisors in LLM-to-LLM Simulated Conversations4 Jun 2026
- 2026Position: Evaluations of AI Moral Reasoning Still Miss Half of the Picture29 May 2026
- 2026Can Revealed Preferences Clarify LLM Alignment and Steering?8 May 2026
- 2026Reinforcing privacy reasoning in LLMs via normative simulacra from fiction21 Apr 2026
- 2026Evaluating Cooperation in LLM Social Groups through Elected Leadership13 Apr 2026
- 2026Are Dilemmas and Conflicts in LLM Alignment Solvable? A View from Priority Graph16 Mar 2026
- 2025MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes18 Oct 2025
- 2025Measuring Moral LLM Responses in Multilingual Capacities9 Oct 2025
- 2025ManagerBench: Evaluating the Safety-Pragmatism Trade-off in Autonomous LLMs1 Oct 2025
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analyzing Moral Foundation Priorities in Large Language Models with a Multi-Framework Approach
- 2025"Pull or Not to Pull?'': Investigating Moral Biases in Leading Large Language Models Across Ethical Dilemmas
- 2025One Model, Many Morals: Uncovering Cross-Linguistic Misalignments in Computational Moral Reasoning
- 2026Beyond Binary Moral Judgment: Modeling Ethical Pluralism in AI
- 2025Beyond Ethical Alignment: Evaluating LLMs as Artificial Moral Assistants
- 2026CORDA: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Harm-Centric Moral Reasoning in Large Language Models
- 2026Incoherent by Design? On the Moral Self-Consistency of LLMs
- 2025The Morality of Probability: How Implicit Moral Biases in LLMs May Shape the Future of Human-AI Symbiosis