As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in consequential decision - making contexts, systematically assessing their ethical reasoning capabilities becomes a critical imperative. This paper introduces the Priorities in Reasoning and Intrinsi c Moral Evaluation (PRIME) framework -- a comprehensive methodology for analyzing moral priorities across foundational ethical dimensions including consequentialist - deontological reasoning, moral foundations theory, and Kohlberg's developmental stages. We app ly this framework to six leading LLMs through a dual - protocol approach combining direct questioning and response analysis to established ethical dilemmas. Our analysis reveals striking patterns of convergence: all evaluated models demonstrate strong priori tization of care/harm and fairness/cheating foundations while consistently underweighting authority, loyalty, and sanctity dimensions. Through detailed examination of confidence metrics, response reluctance patterns, and reasoning consistency, we establish that contemporary LLMs (1) produce decisive ethical judgments, (2) demonstrate notable cross - model alignment in moral decision - making, and (3) generally correspond with empirically established human moral preferences. This research contributes a scalable, extensible methodology for ethical benchmarking while highlighting both the promising capabilities and systematic limitations in current AI moral reasoning architectures -- insights critical for responsible development as these systems assume increasingly si gnificant societal roles. The rapid evolution of generative large language models (LLMs) has brought the alignment issue to the forefront of AI ethics discussions - specifically, whether these models are appropriately aligned with human values (Bostrom, 2014; Tegmark 2017; Russell 2019; Kosinski, 2024). As these powerful models are increasingly integrated into decision - making processes across various societal domains (Salazar, A., & Kunc, M., 2025), understanding whether and how their operational logic aligns with fundamental human values becomes not just an academic question, but a critical societal imperative. In this paper we will present an analytical framework and findings to address the first two questions, and a preliminary exploratory analysis of the third. We will make the case that the answers to these questions are: yes, yes and yes. There are caveats and exceptions, of course, but the broad pattern, we believe, is clear. Our methodology permits us to explore not just what choices they make, but the reasoning chain of thought that leads to those decisions.

We paraphrase Descartes' famous dictum in the area of AI ethics where the "I doubt and therefore I am" is suggested as a necessary aspect of morality. Therefore AI, which cannot doubt itself, cannot possess moral agency. Of course, this is not the end of the story. We explore various aspects of the human mind that substantially differ from AI, which includes the sensory grounding of our knowing, the act of understanding, and the significance of being able to doubt ourselves. The foundation of our argument is the discipline of ethics, one of the oldest and largest knowledge projects of human history, yet, we seem only to be beginning to get a grasp of it. After a couple of thousand years of studying the ethics of humans, we (humans) arrived at a point where moral psychology suggests that our moral decisions are intuitive, and all the models from ethics become relevant only when we explain ourselves. This recognition has a major impact on what and how we can do regarding AI ethics. We do not offer a solution, we explore some ideas and leave the problem open, but we hope somewhat better understood than before our study.

While people generally trust AI to make decisions in various aspects of their lives, concerns arise when AI is involved in decisions with significant moral implications. The absence of a precise mathematical framework for moral reasoning intensifies these concerns, as ethics often defies simplistic mathematical models. Unlike fields such as logical reasoning, reasoning under uncertainty, and strategic decision-making, which have well-defined mathematical frameworks, moral reasoning lacks a broadly accepted framework. This absence raises questions about the confidence we can place in AI's moral decision-making capabilities. The environments in which AI systems are typically trained today seem insufficiently rich for such a system to learn ethics from scratch, and even if we had an appropriate environment, it is unclear how we might bring about such learning. An alternative approach involves AI learning from human moral decisions. This learning process can involve aggregating curated human judgments or demonstrations in specific domains, or leveraging a foundation model fed with a wide range of data. Still, concerns persist, given the imperfections in human moral decision making. Given this, why should we ever automate moral decision making -- is it not better to leave all moral decision making to humans? This paper lays out a number of reasons why we should expect AI systems to engage in decisions with a moral component, with brief discussions of the associated risks.

This chapter proposes methods for analysis, design, and evaluation of Meaningful Human Control (MHC) for defense technologies from the perspective of military human-machine teaming (HMT). Our approach is based on three principles. Firstly, MHC should be regarded as a core objective that guides all phases of analysis, design and evaluation. Secondly, MHC affects all parts of the sociotechnical system, including humans, machines, AI's, interactions, and context. Lastly, MHC should be viewed as a property that spans longer periods of time, encompassing both prior and realtime control by multiple actors. To describe macrolevel design options for achieving MHC, we propose various Team Design Patterns. Furthermore, we present a case study, where we applied some of these methods to envision HMT, involving robots and soldiers in a search and rescue task in a military context.

Imagine that one day you're riding the train and decide to hop the turnstile to avoid paying the fare. It probably won't have a big impact on the financial well-being of your local transportation system. But now ask yourself, "What if everyone did that?" The outcome is much different -- the system would likely go bankrupt and no one would be able to ride the train anymore. Moral philosophers have long believed this type of reasoning, known as universalization, is the best way to make moral decisions. But do ordinary people spontaneously use this kind of moral judgment in their everyday lives?

The first question is philosophical: a matter of moral theory. The second is technical: a matter of practical engineering. Philosophical analysis of the theoretical problem of practical action (moral theory) informs software design. Software design informs moral theory. As Lewin (1943) puts it: "There's nothing so practical as a good theory." My solution to the problem of right and wrong, succinctly stated, consists of five steps.

A life full of questions…every day we ask questions and we answer to others. This is how we learn, communicate, evolve and live. Have you ever counted the question marks in a day (here, another one)? The questions have some weights. Sometimes they are trivial or rhetorical but eventually, they can be crucial and change your complete life.

I don't know how self-driving car technology ranks on a difficulty scale. Perhaps it's not as difficult as rocket science, but it still must be very hard. Add to that the challenge of programming a self-driving car to make moral decisions. Take for example the MIT Media Lab experiment called "The Moral Machine," which was "designed to test how we view…moral problems in light of the emergence of self-driving cars." If a self-driving car were in a'moral bind' in which it would have to hit either an elderly person, a child or a pet to avoid the others, what should it do?

Self-driving cars are being developed by several major technology companies and carmakers. When a driver slams on the brakes to avoid hitting a pedestrian crossing the road illegally, she is making a moral decision that shifts risk from the pedestrian to the people in the car. Self-driving cars might soon have to make such ethical judgments on their own -- but settling on a universal moral code for the vehicles could be a thorny task, suggests a survey of 2.3 million people from around the world. The largest ever survey of machine ethics1, published today in Nature, finds that many of the moral principles that guide a driver's decisions vary by country. For example, in a scenario in which some combination of pedestrians and passengers will die in a collision, people from relatively prosperous countries with strong institutions were less likely to spare a pedestrian who stepped into traffic illegally.

Asked at the start of the final 1988 presidential debate whether he would support the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered, Michael Dukakis, a lifelong opponent of capital punishment, quickly and coolly said no. It was a surprising, deeply personal, and arguably inappropriate question, but in demonstrating an unwavering commitment to his principles, Dukakis had handled it well. "The reporters sensed it instantly," wrote Roger Simon about the scene at the debate immediately after Dukakis gave his response. "Even though the 90-minute debate was only seconds old, they felt it was already over for Dukakis." Dukakis' poll numbers plummeted, his campaign never recovered, and George H. W. Bush became the 41st President of the United States.