THE RELATIVISM DILEMMA IN AI VALUE ALIGNMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CONTEXT-ADAPTIVE PLURALISTIC ETHICAL FRAMEWORK

Authors

  • LiWei Xue (Corresponding Author) School of Marxism, Zhuhai College of Science and Technology, Zhuhai 519041, Guangdong, China.

Keywords:

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

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.

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.

Downloads

Published

2025-11-10

Issue

Section

Research Article

DOI:

How to Cite

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 .