Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a Contractualist Argumentation Framework for moral decision-making in autonomous agents, leveraging Scanlon's contractualism to assess actions based on principles that no one could reasonably reject. By extending the ASPIC+ argumentation framework with value-based filtering, the authors enable agents to determine the moral relevance of reasons based on their individual values. The framework is illustrated through a practical example, showcasing its potential to navigate conflicting interests in shared environments effectively.
Autonomous agents can now make morally sound decisions by evaluating principles that no one could reasonably reject, transforming how we approach ethical AI interactions.
Autonomous agents operating in shared environments must make decisions that affect multiple individuals with potentially conflicting interests. We propose a formal framework for moral decision-making grounded in Scanlon's contractualism, an ethical theory that evaluates the permissibility of actions in terms of principles that no one could reasonably reject. To operationalise contractualist reasoning, we use ASPIC+, a structured argumentation framework, extended with value-based filtering to model how each agent's values determine which reasons are morally relevant in the first place. The result is a Contractualist Argumentation Framework in which agents'reasons are formally represented, compared, and evaluated through argumentation semantics. We illustrate the approach through a worked example in a domestic setting and discuss its relation to existing value-based argumentation approaches.