The conceptual framework proposed in this paper centers on the development of a deliberative moral reasoning system - one designed to process complex moral situations by generating, filtering, and weighing normative arguments drawn from diverse ethical perspectives. While the framework is rooted in Machine Ethics, it also makes a substantive contribution to Value Alignment by outlining a system architecture that links structured moral reasoning to action under time constraints. Grounded in normative moral pluralism, this system is not constructed to imitate behavior but is built on reason-sensitive deliberation over structured moral content in a transparent and principled manner. Beyond its role as a deliberative system, it also serves as the conceptual foundation for a novel two-level architecture: functioning as a moral reasoning teacher envisioned to train faster models that support real-time responsiveness without reproducing the full structure of deliberative reasoning. Together, the deliberative and intuitive components are designed to enable both deep reflection and responsive action. A key design feature is the dual-hybrid structure: a universal layer that defines a moral threshold through top-down and bottom-up learning, and a local layer that learns to weigh competing considerations in context while integrating culturally specific normative content, so long as it remains within the universal threshold. By extending the notion of moral complexity to include not only conflicting beliefs but also multifactorial dilemmas, multiple stakeholders, and the integration of non-moral considerations, the framework aims to support morally grounded decision-making in realistic, high-stakes contexts.

Recent advances in AI research make it increasingly plausible that artificial agents with consequential real-world impact will soon operate beyond tightly controlled environments. Ensuring that these agents are not only safe but that they adhere to broader normative expectations is thus an urgent interdisciplinary challenge. Multiple fields -- notably AI Safety, AI Alignment, and Machine Ethics -- claim to contribute to this task. However, the conceptual boundaries and interrelations among these domains remain vague, leaving researchers without clear guidance in positioning their work. To address this meta-challenge, we develop a structured conceptual framework for understanding AI alignment. Rather than focusing solely on alignment goals, we introduce a taxonomy distinguishing the alignment aim (safety, ethicality, legality, etc.), scope (outcome vs. execution), and constituency (individual vs. collective). This structural approach reveals multiple legitimate alignment configurations, providing a foundation for practical and philosophical integration across domains, and clarifying what it might mean for an agent to be aligned all-things-considered.

As AI systems increasingly operate with autonomy and adaptability, the traditional boundaries of moral responsibility in techno-social systems are being challenged. This paper explores the evolving discourse on the delegation of responsibilities to intelligent autonomous agents and the ethical implications of such practices. Synthesizing recent developments in AI ethics, including concepts of distributed responsibility and ethical AI by design, the paper proposes a functionalist perspective as a framework. This perspective views moral responsibility not as an individual trait but as a role within a socio-technical system, distributed among human and artificial agents. As an example of 'AI ethical by design,' we present Basti and Vitiello's implementation. They suggest that AI can act as artificial moral agents by learning ethical guidelines and using Deontic Higher-Order Logic to assess decisions ethically. Motivated by the possible speed and scale beyond human supervision and ethical implications, the paper argues for 'AI ethical by design', while acknowledging the distributed, shared, and dynamic nature of responsibility. This functionalist approach offers a practical framework for navigating the complexities of AI ethics in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Machine ethics is the field that studies how ethical behaviour can be accomplished by autonomous systems. While there exist some systematic reviews aiming to consolidate the state of the art in machine ethics prior to 2020, these tend to not include work that uses reinforcement learning agents as entities whose ethical behaviour is to be achieved. The reason for this is that only in the last years we have witnessed an increase in machine ethics studies within reinforcement learning. We present here a systematic review of reinforcement learning for machine ethics and machine ethics within reinforcement learning. Additionally, we highlight trends in terms of ethics specifications, components and frameworks of reinforcement learning, and environments used to result in ethical behaviour. Our systematic review aims to consolidate the work in machine ethics and reinforcement learning thus completing the gap in the state of the art machine ethics landscape

We consider the question of what properties a Machine Ethics system should have. This question is complicated by the existence of ethical dilemmas with no agreed upon solution. We provide an example to motivate why we do not believe falling back on the elicitation of values from stakeholders is sufficient to guarantee correctness of such systems. We go on to define two broad categories of ethical property that have arisen in our own work and present a challenge to the community to approach this question in a more systematic way.

Artificial intelligence (AI) ethics has emerged as a burgeoning yet pivotal area of scholarly research. This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of the AI ethics literature over the past two decades. The analysis reveals a discernible tripartite progression, characterized by an incubation phase, followed by a subsequent phase focused on imbuing AI with human-like attributes, culminating in a third phase emphasizing the development of human-centric AI systems. After that, they present seven key AI ethics issues, encompassing the Collingridge dilemma, the AI status debate, challenges associated with AI transparency and explainability, privacy protection complications, considerations of justice and fairness, concerns about algocracy and human enfeeblement, and the issue of superintelligence. Finally, they identify two notable research gaps in AI ethics regarding the large ethics model (LEM) and AI identification and extend an invitation for further scholarly research.

Semi-autonomous machines, autonomous machines and robots inhabit closed, semi-closed and open environments, more structured environments like the household or more unstructured environments like cultural landscapes or the wilderness. There they encounter domestic animals, farm animals, working animals, and wild animals. These creatures could be disturbed, displaced, injured, or killed by the machines. Within the context of machine ethics and social robotics, the School of Business FHNW developed several design studies and prototypes for animal-friendly machines, which can be understood as moral and social machines in the spirit of these disciplines. In 2019-20, a team led by the main author developed a prototype robot lawnmower that can recognize hedgehogs, interrupt its work for them and thus protect them. Every year many of these animals die worldwide because of traditional service robots. HAPPY HEDGEHOG (HHH), as the invention is called, could be a solution to this problem. This article begins by providing an introduction to the background. Then it focuses on navigation (where the machine comes across certain objects that need to be recognized) and thermal and image recognition (with the help of machine learning) of the machine. It also presents obvious weaknesses and possible improvements. The results could be relevant for an industry that wants to market their products as animal-friendly machines.

The ethics of automated vehicles (AV) has received a great amount of attention in recent years, specifically in regard to their decisional policies in accident situations in which human harm is a likely consequence. After a discussion about the pertinence and cogency of the term 'artificial moral agent' to describe AVs that would accomplish these sorts of decisions, and starting from the assumption that human harm is unavoidable in some situations, a strategy for AV decision making is proposed using only pre-defined parameters to characterize the risk of possible accidents and also integrating the Ethical Valence Theory, which paints AV decision-making as a type of claim mitigation, into multiple possible decision rules to determine the most suitable action given the specific environment and decision context. The goal of this approach is not to define how moral theory requires vehicles to behave, but rather to provide a computational approach that is flexible enough to accommodate a number of human 'moral positions' concerning what morality demands and what road users may expect, offering an evaluation tool for the social acceptability of an automated vehicle's decision making.

We propose the use of the hypothetical retrospection argumentation procedure, developed by Sven Ove Hansson to improve existing approaches to machine ethical reasoning by accounting for probability and uncertainty from a position of Philosophy that resonates with humans. Actions are represented with a branching set of potential outcomes, each with a state, utility, and either a numeric or poetic probability estimate. Actions are chosen based on comparisons between sets of arguments favouring actions from the perspective of their branches, even those branches that led to an undesirable outcome. This use of arguments allows a variety of philosophical theories for ethical reasoning to be used, potentially in flexible combination with each other. We implement the procedure, applying consequentialist and deontological ethical theories, independently and concurrently, to an autonomous library system use case. We introduce a preliminary framework that seems to meet the varied requirements of a machine ethics system: versatility under multiple theories and a resonance with humans that enables transparency and explainability.

The numerous deployed Artificial Intelligence systems need to be aligned with our ethical considerations. However, such ethical considerations might change as time passes: our society is not fixed, and our social mores evolve. This makes it difficult for these AI systems; in the Machine Ethics field especially, it has remained an under-studied challenge. In this paper, we present two algorithms, named QSOM and QDSOM, which are able to adapt to changes in the environment, and especially in the reward function, which represents the ethical considerations that we want these systems to be aligned with. They associate the well-known Q-Table to (Dynamic) Self-Organizing Maps to handle the continuous and multi-dimensional state and action spaces. We evaluate them on a use-case of multi-agent energy repartition within a small Smart Grid neighborhood, and prove their ability to adapt, and their higher performance compared to baseline Reinforcement Learning algorithms.