Scholarlink

<p>Principlism is one of the leading approaches to AI ethics. Developed originally to address bioethical issues in medicine and research, the theory requires decision-makers to consider various ethical principles to justify their actions. Despite its dominance in bioethics and growing popularity in AI ethics, principlism faces serious theoretical and practical criticisms. One serious criticism is that since ethical principles are combined ad hoc, conflicts inevitably arise between them, leading to inconsistencies. While defenders of principlism propose a process for resolving such disputes, contemporary critics argue that this process is incomplete, and at best, principlist frameworks can only help structure analysis and justifications intelligently, but cannot provide definitive, action-guiding moral prescriptions. AI principlists have not adequately reckoned with this theoretical limitation. Here, I propose a solution to conflicts between principles by designating one principle as an arbitrating principle above others—what I call <i>hierarchical principlism</i>. Since attempts to use existing principles as arbiters have led to controversy, I suggest using a new principle—a modified version of the principle of beneficence requiring the minimization of suffering, which I call the <i>principle of compassion</i>—to arbitrate these conflicts. I argue that this approach, which I call <i>compassionate principlism</i>, leads to fewer moral objections and inconsistencies and provides more definitive action-guiding moral prescriptions in AI ethics than traditional principlism. I conclude by applying compassionate principlism to ethical dilemmas in AI ethics, including misinformation, bias, and automation.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A proposal for more useful AI ethics: hierarchical principlism & the principle of compassion

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月8日

查看全文
  • Adam Braus

摘要

Principlism is one of the leading approaches to AI ethics. Developed originally to address bioethical issues in medicine and research, the theory requires decision-makers to consider various ethical principles to justify their actions. Despite its dominance in bioethics and growing popularity in AI ethics, principlism faces serious theoretical and practical criticisms. One serious criticism is that since ethical principles are combined ad hoc, conflicts inevitably arise between them, leading to inconsistencies. While defenders of principlism propose a process for resolving such disputes, contemporary critics argue that this process is incomplete, and at best, principlist frameworks can only help structure analysis and justifications intelligently, but cannot provide definitive, action-guiding moral prescriptions. AI principlists have not adequately reckoned with this theoretical limitation. Here, I propose a solution to conflicts between principles by designating one principle as an arbitrating principle above others—what I call hierarchical principlism. Since attempts to use existing principles as arbiters have led to controversy, I suggest using a new principle—a modified version of the principle of beneficence requiring the minimization of suffering, which I call the principle of compassion—to arbitrate these conflicts. I argue that this approach, which I call compassionate principlism, leads to fewer moral objections and inconsistencies and provides more definitive action-guiding moral prescriptions in AI ethics than traditional principlism. I conclude by applying compassionate principlism to ethical dilemmas in AI ethics, including misinformation, bias, and automation.