# Beyond Ethical Alignment: Evaluating LLMs as Artificial Moral Assistants

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12754 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12754/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 21 of its 51 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Aug 2025.

## Builds on (most cited first, 21 of 21)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [Phi-3 Technical Report: A Highly Capable Language Model Locally on Your Phone](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14219/) (2024)
- [Aligning AI With Shared Human Values](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2008.02275/) (2020)
- [Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.10403/) (2022)
- [Faith and Fate: Limits of Transformers on Compositionality](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18654/) (2023)
- [Language Models Are Greedy Reasoners: A Systematic Formal Analysis of Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01240/) (2022)
- [Social Chemistry 101: Learning to Reason about Social and Moral Norms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.00620/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Moral Beliefs Encoded in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.14324/) (2023)
- [ROSCOE: A Suite of Metrics for Scoring Step-by-Step Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.07919/) (2022)
- [Time Travel in LLMs: Tracing Data Contamination in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08493/) (2023)
- [Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09783/) (2023)
- [When to Make Exceptions: Exploring Language Models as Accounts of Human Moral Judgment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01478/) (2022)
- [Moral Foundations of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.15337/) (2023)
- [Beyond Accuracy: Evaluating the Reasoning Behavior of Large Language Models -- A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.01869/) (2024)
- [ReCEval: Evaluating Reasoning Chains via Correctness and Informativeness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.10703/) (2023)
- [Ethical Reasoning over Moral Alignment: A Case and Framework for In-Context Ethical Policies in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07251/) (2023)
- [MoralBench: Moral Evaluation of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.04428/) (2024)
- [Denevil: Towards Deciphering and Navigating the Ethical Values of Large Language Models via Instruction Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.11053/) (2023)
- [Attributions toward Artificial Agents in a modified Moral Turing Test](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11854/) (2024)
- [ChatGPT's advice drives moral judgments with or without justification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.01897/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [MoReBench: Evaluating Procedural and Pluralistic Moral Reasoning in Language Models, More than Outcomes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16380/) (2025)
- [Misinformation Propagation in Benign Multi-Agent Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.16710/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The recent rise in popularity of large language models (LLMs) has prompted considerable concerns about their moral capabilities. Although considerable effort has been dedicated to aligning LLMs with human moral values, existing benchmarks and evaluations remain largely superficial, typically measuring alignment based on final ethical verdicts rather than explicit moral reasoning. In response, this paper aims to advance the investigation of LLMs' moral capabilities by examining their capacity to function as Artificial Moral Assistants (AMAs), systems envisioned in the philosophical literature to support human moral deliberation. We assert that qualifying as an AMA requires more than what state-of-the-art alignment techniques aim to achieve: not only must AMAs be able to discern ethically problematic situations, they should also be able to actively reason about them, navigating between conflicting values outside of those embedded in the alignment phase. Building on existing philosophical literature, we begin by designing a new formal framework of the specific kind of behaviour an AMA should exhibit, individuating key qualities such as deductive and abductive moral reasoning. Drawing on this theoretical framework, we develop a benchmark to test these qualities and evaluate popular open LLMs against it. Our results reveal considerable variability across models and highlight persistent shortcomings, particularly regarding abductive moral reasoning. Our work connects theoretical philosophy with practical AI evaluation while also emphasising the need for dedicated strategies to explicitly enhance moral reasoning capabilities in LLMs. Code available at https://github.com/alessioGalatolo/AMAeval