Author(s)

LiWei Xue

Affiliation(s)

School of Marxism, Zhuhai College of Science and Technology, Zhuhai 519041, Guangdong, China.

Corresponding Author

LiWei Xue

ABSTRACT

The alignment of artificial intelligence (AI) with human values is not merely a technical challenge but a profound ethical conundrum. Value alignment seeks to ensure that AI systems behave in accordance with human values; however, the relativity of value norms across cultural communities renders “singular alignment” unattainable. This paper examines the cultural relativism dilemma in AI value alignment from two perspectives: first, the philosophical tension between universalism and relativism; second, the encoding difficulties of plural cultural values in technical implementation. Through this analysis, the paper argues that effective value alignment must be grounded in a context-adaptive pluralistic ethical framework that respects cultural differences while avoiding moral relativism.

KEYWORDS

AI value alignment; Cultural relativism; Universalism; Pluralistic ethics; Contextual adaptability

CITE THIS PAPER

LiWei Xue. The relativism dilemma in AI value alignment and the construction of a context-adaptive pluralistic ethical framework. World Journal of Sociology and Law. 2025, 3(2): 32-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.61784/wjsl3029.

REFERENCES

[1] Kant I. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. London, UK: Early Modern Texts, 1785. Retrieved from https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf

[2] Russell S. Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. New York, NY: Viking, 2019.

[3] United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York, NY: United Nations, 1948.

[4] IEEE. Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems. New York, NY: IEEE, 2019.

[5] Rawls J. A. Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

[6] Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1981.

[7] Bender E M, Gebru T, McMillan-Major A, et al. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? In Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT ’21). New York, NY: ACM, 2021.

[8] Geertz C. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1973.

[9] MacIntyre A. After Virtue. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981.

[10] African Union.Revised Malabo Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: African Union, 2023.

[11] Rorty R. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press,1989.

[12] Awad E, Dsouza S, Kim R, et al. The moral machine experiment. Nature, 2018, 563: 59–64. 

[13] Hofstede G. Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980.

[14] Schwartz S H. Universals in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1992, 23(1): 92–122.

[15] Arrow K J. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York, NY: Wiley, 1951.

[16] DeepMind. Scalable Oversight: Technical Report. London, UK: DeepMind, 2023.

[17] Government of India. Personal Data Protection Act. New Delhi, India: Government of India, 2024.

[18] Zuboff S. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. New York, NY: PublicAffairs, 2019.

[19] DeepMind. Cultural Fingerprint: Multimodal Identity Inference [Internal report]. London, UK: DeepMind, 2024.

[20] Rawls J. Political Liberalism. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993.