1. bookVolume 45 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-3405
First Published
24 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Morality, protection, security and gain: lessons from a minimalistic, economically inspired multi-agent model

Published Online: 27 Mar 2020
Page range: 17 - 33
Received: 07 Nov 2018
Accepted: 07 Feb 2020
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
eISSN
2300-3405
First Published
24 Oct 2012
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

In this work, we introduce a simple multi-agent simulation model with two roles of agents that correspond to moral and immoral attitudes. The model is given explicitly by a set of mathematical equations with continuous variables and is characterized by four parameters: morality, protection, and two efficiency parameters. Agents are free to adjust their roles to maximize individual gains. The model is analyzed theoretically to find conditions for its stability, i.e., the fractions of agents of both roles that lead to an equilibrium in their gains. A multi-agent simulation is also developed to verify the dynamics of the model for all values of morality and protection parameters, and to identify potential discrepancies with the theoretical analysis.

Keywords

[1] Allen C., Varner G., and Zinser J. Prolegomena to any future artificial moral agent. Journal of Experimental & Theoretical Artificial Intelligence, 12(3):251–261, 2000.10.1080/09528130050111428Search in Google Scholar

[2] Anderson M. and Anderson S. L. Machine ethics: Creating an ethical intelligent agent. AI Magazine, 28(4):15, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Ayala F. J. The biological roots of morality. Biology and Philosophy, 2(3):235–252, 1987.10.1007/BF00128831Search in Google Scholar

[4] Bazzan A. L. C., Bordini R. H., and Campbell J. A. Agents with moral sentiments in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma exercise. Technical report, 1997.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Bazzan A. L. C., Bordini R. H., and Campbell J. A. Evolution of agents with moral sentiments in an iterated prisoner’s dilemma exercise. In Parsons S., Gmytrasiewicz P., and Wooldridge M., editors, Game Theory and Decision Theory in Agent-Based Systems, pages 43–64. Springer, 2002. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1107-6_3, doi:10.1007/978-1-4615-1107-6_3.10.1007/978-1-4615-1107-6_3Search in Google Scholar

[6] Belloni A., Berger A., Besson V., Boissier O., Bonnet G., Bourgne G., Chardel P. A., Cotton J.-P., Evreux N., Ganascia J.-G., et al. Towards a framework to deal with ethical conflicts in autonomous agents and multi-agent systems. In CEPE 2014 Well-Being, Flourishing, and ICTs, pages paper–8, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Birnbaum M. H. Morality judgments: Tests of an averaging model. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93(1):35, 1972.Search in Google Scholar

[8] Chiu C.-y., Dweck C. S., Tong J. Y.-y., and Fu J. H.-y. Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5):923, 1997.10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.923Search in Google Scholar

[9] Coelho H., da Rocha Costa A. C., and Trigo P. On agent interactions governed by morality. In Interdisciplinary Applications of Agent-Based Social Simulation and Modeling, pages 20–35. IGI Global, 2014.10.4018/978-1-4666-5954-4.ch002Search in Google Scholar

[10] DeScioli P. and Kurzban R. Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112(2):281–299, 2009.10.1016/j.cognition.2009.05.00819505683Search in Google Scholar

[11] Floridi L. and Sanders J. W. On the morality of artificial agents. Minds and Machines, 14(3):349–379, Aug 2004. URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d, doi:10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9d.10.1023/B:MIND.0000035461.63578.9dSearch in Google Scholar

[12] Gotts N. M., Polhill J. G., and Law A. N. R. Agent-based simulation in the study of social dilemmas. Artificial Intelligence Review, 19(1):3–92, 2003.10.1023/A:1022120928602Search in Google Scholar

[13] Gunkel D. J., Bryson J. J., and Torrance S. The machine question: AI, ethics and moral responsibility, 2012.10.7551/mitpress/8975.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

[14] Harsanyi J. C. Can the maximin principle serve as a basis for morality? A critique of John Rawls’s theory. American political science review, 69(2):594–606, 1975.10.2307/1959090Search in Google Scholar

[15] Hill R. P. and Watkins A. A simulation of moral behavior within marketing exchange relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(3):417–429, 2007. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0025-5, doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0025-5.10.1007/s11747-007-0025-5Search in Google Scholar

[16] Hofbauer J. and Sigmund K. Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge University Press, 1998.10.1017/CBO9781139173179Search in Google Scholar

[17] Komosinski M. and Adamatzky A., editors. Artificial Life Models in Software. Springer, London, 2nd edition, 2009. URL: http://www.springer.com/978-1-84882-284-9, doi:10.1007/978-1-84882-285-6.10.1007/978-1-84882-285-6Search in Google Scholar

[18] Kuhn S. T. Reflections on ethics and game theory. Synthese, 141(1):1–44, 2004.10.1023/B:SYNT.0000035846.91195.cbSearch in Google Scholar

[19] May R. M. and Leonard W. J. Nonlinear aspects of competition between three species. SIAM journal on applied mathematics, 29(2):243–253, 1975.10.1137/0129022Search in Google Scholar

[20] McLaren B. M. Computational models of ethical reasoning: Challenges, initial steps, and future directions. IEEE intelligent systems, (4):29–37, 2006.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Moor J. Four kinds of ethical robots. Philosophy Now, 72:12–14, 2009.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Nawa N. E., Shimohara K., and Katai O. Does diversity lead to morality? On the evolution of strategies in a 3-agent alternating-offers bargaining model. In Workshop on Evolutionary Computation and Multi-Agent Systems (ECOMAS) at the Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference (GECCO-2001), pages 317–320, 2001.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Rahwan I. Interest-based negotiation in multi-agent systems. PhD thesis, University of Melbourne, Department of Information Systems, 2004.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Robbins R. and Hall D. Decision support for individuals, groups, and organizations: Ethics and values in the context of complex problem solving. In AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, page 329, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Saptawijaya A. and Pereira L. M. Towards modeling morality computationally with logic programming. In International Symposium on Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages, pages 104–119. Springer, 2014.10.1007/978-3-319-04132-2_8Search in Google Scholar

[26] Sullins J. P. When is a robot a moral agent? IRIE: International Review of Information Ethics, 2006.10.29173/irie136Search in Google Scholar

[27] Wallach W., Allen C., and Smit I. Machine morality: bottom-up and top-down approaches for modelling human moral faculties. AI & Society, 22(4):565–582, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Wiegel V. and van den Berg J. Combining moral theory, modal logic and MAS to create well-behaving artificial agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 1(3):233–242, 2009.10.1007/s12369-009-0023-5Search in Google Scholar

[29] Wilson E. O. The biological basis of morality. The Atlantic Monthly, 281(4):53–70, 1998.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo