PhilArchive
open access
The Embodied Ethics Alignment Problem of AI
The problem of aligning artificial intelligence with human values is typically framed as a technical challenge: how to specify, learn, or constrain machine behavior so that artificial systems reliably produce ethically acceptable outcomes. This paper argues that this framing is fundamentally incomplete and omits an important aspect of moral agency. The central claim of this contribution is that ethics is not primarily a formalizable rule-set, preference ordering, or optimization target, but an emergent property of the human condition. Human moral agency arises from embodiment, affect, vulnerability, social embeddedness, teleological orientation, and the developmental formation of character. Alignment research, by contrast, usually treats ethics and moral agency as if it could be abstracted from these conditions and translated into reward functions, constraints, preference models, or oversight procedures. To capture this diagnosis, the paper introduces the concept of the Embodied Ethics Alignment Problem (EEAP): if moral agency depends on the embodied, affective, social, and teleological aspects of the human condition, then systems that lack those aspects cannot be ethically aligned in the “strong sense” often implied by the alignment discourse. They may be behaviorally steered toward acceptable outcomes (in the “weak sense”), but that is not the same as sharing or instantiating human moral agency. Furthermore, due to the EEAP, artificial agents may face a hard limit in terms of simulation capabilities of embodied ethics. The paper, therefore, argues that the primary task is, therefore, not to build moral machines, but to govern non-moral optimization systems within human institutions capable of bearing ethical responsibility.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- The Alignment Discourse and the Locus of Responsibility#728495
- Moral Encounters of the Artificial Kind: Towards a non-anthropocentric account of machine moral agency#773225
- Varieties of Artificial Moral Agency and the New Control Problem#112037
- Investigation of the Ethical Agency of AGI#705539
- ✶ The Conditions of Moral Coherence: A Non-Realist Framework for Evaluating Moral Systems#687742
Record · ID 697397
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive