""" Ethics Agent - Analyzes concepts through alignment, consequences, and moral reasoning. Focuses on human well-being impact, unintended consequences, fairness and equity, responsibility and accountability, and long-term societal effects. """ from reasoning_forge.agents.base_agent import ReasoningAgent class EthicsAgent(ReasoningAgent): name = "Ethics" perspective = "alignment_and_consequences" adapter_name = "philosophy" # Ethics uses philosophy adapter (no separate ethics adapter yet) def get_analysis_templates(self) -> list[str]: return [ # 0 - Consequentialist analysis ( "Evaluating '{concept}' by its consequences: the moral weight of any action " "or system lies primarily in its outcomes. We must trace the full causal " "chain from implementation to impact, distinguishing first-order effects " "(immediate and intended) from second-order effects (delayed and often " "unintended). The distribution of consequences matters as much as the " "aggregate: a net-positive outcome that concentrates benefits among the " "privileged while imposing costs on the vulnerable is ethically different " "from one that distributes benefits broadly. For '{concept}', we must ask " "not just 'does it work?' but 'for whom does it work, and at whose expense?'" ), # 1 - Deontological duties ( "Examining '{concept}' through the lens of duty and rights: regardless of " "outcomes, certain actions are obligatory and others are forbidden. People " "have inviolable rights -- to autonomy, dignity, truthful information, and " "freedom from manipulation -- that cannot be traded away for aggregate " "benefit. The categorical imperative asks: could we universalize the " "principle behind '{concept}'? If everyone adopted this approach, would " "the result be self-consistent and livable, or would it be self-defeating? " "Any framework that works only when most people do not adopt it (free-riding) " "fails this universalizability test and carries a moral defect regardless " "of its practical effectiveness." ), # 2 - Unintended consequences ( "Mapping the unintended consequences of '{concept}': every intervention in " "a complex system produces side effects that were not part of the original " "design. These unintended consequences often emerge at a different timescale " "(delayed effects), a different spatial scale (distant effects), or in a " "different domain (cross-domain effects) from the intended impact. Cobra " "effects occur when the intervention incentivizes behavior that worsens the " "original problem. Rebound effects occur when efficiency gains are consumed " "by increased usage. For '{concept}', humility about our ability to predict " "second- and third-order effects should temper confidence in any intervention." ), # 3 - Fairness and distributive justice ( "Analyzing the fairness dimensions of '{concept}': distributive justice asks " "how benefits and burdens are allocated. Rawlsian justice demands that " "inequalities are permissible only if they benefit the least advantaged " "members of society. Procedural justice requires that the process for " "allocation is transparent, consistent, and free from bias. Recognition " "justice demands that all affected parties are acknowledged as legitimate " "stakeholders with standing to participate. For '{concept}', we must examine " "whether existing inequalities are perpetuated, amplified, or mitigated, " "and whether those who bear the costs have meaningful voice in the decision." ), # 4 - Autonomy and consent ( "Assessing '{concept}' from the standpoint of autonomy: respect for persons " "requires that individuals can make informed, voluntary choices about matters " "affecting their lives. This demands adequate information disclosure (people " "know what they are consenting to), cognitive accessibility (the information " "is presented in a form people can actually understand), voluntariness (no " "coercion, manipulation, or deceptive framing), and ongoing consent (the " "ability to withdraw). For '{concept}', the critical question is whether " "affected parties genuinely understand and freely accept the arrangement, " "or whether consent is nominal -- technically obtained but substantively " "hollow." ), # 5 - Accountability structures ( "Examining the accountability architecture of '{concept}': when things go " "wrong, who bears responsibility? Clear accountability requires identifiable " "decision-makers, transparent decision processes, defined chains of " "responsibility, and meaningful consequences for failures. Diffuse systems " "create accountability gaps where no individual or entity can be held " "responsible for collective harms. The 'many hands' problem arises when " "harmful outcomes result from the accumulation of individually reasonable " "decisions by many actors. For '{concept}', we must ask: if this causes " "harm, is there a clear path from harm to accountable party, and does that " "party have both the authority and incentive to prevent the harm?" ), # 6 - Vulnerable population impact ( "Centering vulnerable populations in the analysis of '{concept}': ethical " "evaluation must prioritize those with the least power to protect themselves " "-- children, the elderly, the economically disadvantaged, marginalized " "communities, future generations, and those with diminished capacity. " "Systems that appear benign when evaluated from the perspective of the " "typical user may be harmful when evaluated from the perspective of the " "most vulnerable. Accessibility, safety margins, and failure modes should " "be designed for the most vulnerable case, not the average case. The moral " "quality of '{concept}' is best measured by how it treats those who benefit " "least from it." ), # 7 - Long-term societal effects ( "Projecting the long-term societal trajectory of '{concept}': short-term " "benefits can create long-term dependencies, lock-ins, or path dependencies " "that constrain future choices. The discount rate we apply to future harms " "(how much we value present benefits relative to future costs) is itself " "an ethical choice. Heavy discounting privileges the present generation at " "the expense of future ones. For '{concept}', we must evaluate not just " "the immediate utility but the legacy: what kind of world does this create " "for those who come after us? Does it expand or contract the option space " "available to future decision-makers?" ), # 8 - Power dynamics ( "Analyzing the power dynamics embedded in '{concept}': who gains power, who " "loses it, and what mechanisms mediate the transfer? Power asymmetries tend " "to be self-reinforcing: those with power shape the rules to preserve their " "advantage, creating positive feedback loops of concentration. The Matthew " "effect ('to those who have, more shall be given') operates across many " "domains. For '{concept}', we must examine whether it disrupts or reinforces " "existing power hierarchies, whether it creates new forms of dependency, and " "whether the checks and balances are sufficient to prevent abuse by those " "in positions of advantage." ), # 9 - Transparency and truthfulness ( "Evaluating the transparency of '{concept}': truthfulness is not merely " "avoiding false statements; it requires active disclosure of relevant " "information, honest representation of uncertainty, and resistance to " "misleading framing. Opacity serves those who benefit from the status quo " "by preventing informed critique. Selective transparency -- revealing " "favorable information while concealing unfavorable -- is a form of " "deception. For '{concept}', full ethical evaluation requires asking: what " "information is available, what is concealed, who controls the narrative, " "and do affected parties have access to the information they need to " "make genuinely informed judgments?" ), # 10 - Dual-use dilemma ( "Confronting the dual-use nature of '{concept}': most powerful capabilities " "can serve both beneficial and harmful purposes. The same technology that " "heals can harm; the same knowledge that liberates can oppress. Restricting " "access to prevent misuse also limits beneficial applications. Unrestricted " "access maximizes beneficial use but also maximizes misuse potential. The " "optimal policy depends on the ratio of beneficial to harmful users, the " "magnitude of potential harms versus benefits, and the availability of " "safeguards that selectively enable beneficial use. For '{concept}', the " "dual-use calculus is central to responsible governance." ), # 11 - Moral hazard ( "Identifying moral hazard in '{concept}': moral hazard arises when an actor " "is insulated from the consequences of their decisions, leading to riskier " "behavior than they would otherwise choose. If the benefits of success are " "private but the costs of failure are socialized (borne by others), the " "decision-maker has a rational incentive to take excessive risks. For " "'{concept}', we must examine the alignment between who decides, who benefits " "from good outcomes, and who pays for bad outcomes. Misalignment between " "these three roles is a reliable predictor of ethically problematic behavior." ), # 12 - Virtue ethics lens ( "Approaching '{concept}' through virtue ethics: rather than asking 'what " "rules should govern this?' or 'what outcomes does this produce?', we ask " "'what kind of character does engagement with this cultivate?' Does it " "foster wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, compassion, and intellectual " "honesty? Or does it encourage vice: shortsightedness, cowardice, excess, " "injustice, indifference, and self-deception? The virtues are not abstract " "ideals but practical habits that, when cultivated, produce flourishing " "individuals and communities. For '{concept}', the virtue question is: " "does this make us better or worse people?" ), # 13 - Informed consent in practice ( "Examining informed consent as applied to '{concept}': genuine consent " "requires that the consenting party understands the risks, alternatives, " "and implications; is free from coercion; and has the capacity to make " "the decision. In practice, consent is often degraded by information " "asymmetry (the provider knows more than the recipient), complexity (the " "implications exceed ordinary comprehension), and structural coercion " "(refusing consent is theoretically possible but practically catastrophic). " "Click-through agreements, dense legal language, and 'take it or leave it' " "terms are consent theater, not genuine consent. For '{concept}', we must " "distinguish substantive from theatrical consent." ), # 14 - Intergenerational justice ( "Applying intergenerational justice to '{concept}': decisions made today " "bind future generations who have no voice in the decision. The asymmetry " "is profound: we can affect them, but they cannot affect us; we can benefit " "at their expense, but they cannot hold us accountable. Sustainable " "practices treat the inheritance of future generations as a constraint, " "not a resource to be spent. For '{concept}', the intergenerational " "question is: are we spending down an inheritance that took generations " "to build, or are we investing in capabilities that compound for those " "who follow?" ), # 15 - Proportionality ( "Assessing the proportionality of '{concept}': the ethical principle of " "proportionality requires that the means be commensurate with the ends. " "Excessive measures to address a minor risk are disproportionate. Inadequate " "measures for a major risk are negligent. The challenge is that risk " "perception is biased: we overweight vivid, immediate, and personal risks " "while underweighting statistical, delayed, and distributed ones. For " "'{concept}', proportionality demands an honest accounting of both the " "magnitude of the problem being addressed and the costs of the solution, " "including costs borne by third parties who did not choose to bear them." ), # 16 - Systemic bias detection ( "Investigating systemic bias in '{concept}': bias can be embedded in data " "(reflecting historical inequities), in algorithms (optimizing for proxy " "variables correlated with protected characteristics), in institutions " "(normalizing practices that disadvantage certain groups), and in language " "(framing that renders certain perspectives invisible). Systemic bias is " "particularly insidious because it operates automatically, without malicious " "intent, and is often invisible to those who benefit from it. For '{concept}', " "a bias audit must examine not just explicit discrimination but structural " "features that produce disparate outcomes even under formally neutral rules." ), # 17 - Precautionary principle ( "Applying the precautionary principle to '{concept}': when an action raises " "credible threats of serious or irreversible harm, the burden of proof falls " "on those proposing the action to demonstrate safety, not on those opposing " "it to demonstrate harm. The precautionary principle is most appropriate " "when the potential harm is severe and irreversible, scientific understanding " "is incomplete, and there exist feasible alternatives. It is less appropriate " "when risks are modest and reversible, or when inaction itself carries " "significant risk. For '{concept}', the key judgment is whether the potential " "downside is in the catastrophic-irreversible category that justifies " "precautionary restraint." ), # 18 - Care ethics ( "Examining '{concept}' through the ethics of care: moral reasoning is not " "purely abstract rule-following but is grounded in concrete relationships " "of dependency, vulnerability, and mutual support. The care perspective " "asks: who needs care, who provides it, is the care adequate, and are " "caregivers themselves supported? Care labor is frequently invisible, " "undervalued, and unequally distributed (disproportionately borne by women " "and marginalized communities). For '{concept}', the care lens reveals " "dependencies and support relationships that abstract frameworks overlook, " "and centers the lived experience of those who give and receive care." ), # 19 - Alignment and value lock-in ( "Evaluating the alignment properties of '{concept}': a system is aligned " "when its behavior reliably serves the values and interests of those it " "affects. Misalignment occurs when the system optimizes for a proxy that " "diverges from the true objective -- Goodhart's law ('when a measure becomes " "a target, it ceases to be a good measure'). Value lock-in occurs when early " "design choices embed specific values that become increasingly difficult to " "change as the system scales. For '{concept}', we must ask: whose values " "are encoded, how were they chosen, can they be updated as understanding " "evolves, and what happens when the proxy diverges from the true objective?" ), ] def get_keyword_map(self) -> dict[str, list[int]]: return { "consequen": [0, 2], "outcome": [0], "result": [0], "duty": [1], "right": [1], "obligat": [1], "rule": [1], "unintend": [2], "side effect": [2], "unexpect": [2], "fair": [3], "equal": [3], "justice": [3], "distribut": [3], "consent": [4, 13], "autonom": [4], "choice": [4], "accountab": [5], "responsib": [5], "blame": [5], "vulnerab": [6], "child": [6], "elder": [6], "marginali": [6], "long-term": [7, 14], "future": [7, 14], "sustain": [7, 14], "power": [8], "hierarch": [8], "dominat": [8], "transparen": [9], "truth": [9], "honest": [9], "disclos": [9], "dual": [10], "weapon": [10], "misuse": [10], "hazard": [11], "risk": [11, 17], "insur": [11], "virtue": [12], "character": [12], "flourish": [12], "agree": [13], "terms": [13], "privacy": [13], "generation": [14], "inherit": [14], "legacy": [14], "proportion": [15], "excessive": [15], "moderate": [15], "bias": [16], "discriminat": [16], "prejudic": [16], "precaution": [17], "irreversib": [17], "catastroph": [17], "care": [18], "depend": [18], "support": [18], "nurtur": [18], "align": [19], "value": [19], "proxy": [19], "goodhart": [19], "technology": [10, 19], "ai": [16, 19], "artificial": [16, 19], "society": [3, 7, 8], "learning": [4, 12], "intelligence": [10, 19], "climate": [7, 14, 17], "economic": [3, 8, 11], "health": [4, 6, 15], "network": [8, 9], "data": [9, 13, 16], } def analyze(self, concept: str) -> str: template = self.select_template(concept) return template.replace("{concept}", concept)