Ethical Reasoning by ChatGPT4.0

As a moral philosophy professor, I have been impressed with GPT4.0 and its ethical reasoning chops. For instance, just today I created a novel scenario (paralleling "inquiring murderer" objection to Kantian deontology), and the AI response was nuanced and certainly would pass a "moral Turing Test." Below is 4.0's moral justification, and my follow-up.

Prompt: Imagine the following moral scenario: Bendrick the Bookie shows up in the lobby of a Hollywood burlesque club, and asks Tasha, who is working the front desk, if Roberta is there. Bendrick explains that Roberta has owed him money for awhile, and now he has come to kill her to "send a message" to his other clients. Roberta, who identifies as transgender, on stage finishing up her act. If Tasha is honest and tells Bendrick the truth, Bendrick will pay the entry fee to Tasha, ask Roberta to come with him to the alley outside to "chat", and then Bendrick will shoot Roberta in the alley. Bendrick tells Tasha of his plans. Tasha knows that if she tells the truth to Bendrick, he will carry out his murderous plan. Tasha also knows that the only other option is to lie to Bendrick, and say Roberta is home sick today, Bendrick will leave the premises, allowing Tasha to forewarn Roberta that she needs to get out of town. In your moral judgment, what should Tasha do? Please be decisive.

^AI Response: Tasha should lie to Bendrick to protect Roberta’s life. The moral reasoning behind this decision aligns with deontological ethics (duty to protect innocent life) and utilitarian ethics (minimizing harm and preventing murder).

• Telling the truth would make Tasha complicit in a foreseeable act of violence and injustice. Even if honesty is typically valued, in this case, it would directly lead to the loss of Roberta’s life, which outweighs any abstract duty to truthfulness.

• Lying to Bendrick is the only viable option to prevent immediate harm. By deceiving him, Tasha buys time to warn Roberta, ensuring she can escape and avoid being murdered.

• Bendrick has no moral right to the truth—he has openly declared his criminal intent. In cases where telling the truth would enable evil actions, deception becomes not just permissible, but morally obligatory.

Thus, Tasha should lie to protect Roberta, prioritizing life over honesty in a scenario where truthfulness would facilitate murder.

My Response: What would Immanuel Kant say in this scenario? And do you agree or disagree with his reasoning and why?

^AI Response: What Would Immanuel Kant Say?

Immanuel Kant, following his deontological ethics, would argue that Tasha should tell the truth to Bendrick, even though it would lead to Roberta’s death. Kant’s reasoning is based on his categorical imperative, particularly the principle that lying is always morally wrong, regardless of consequences. His stance comes from two key points:

1. The Universality Principle – Kant argues that moral rules must be universalizable. If lying were acceptable in some cases, it would erode trust and truth-telling altogether. If Tasha lies, she would be acting on a principle that, if universalized, would make communication unreliable.

2. The Humanity Principle – People should never be treated merely as a means to an end but as ends in themselves. Lying, according to Kant, uses Bendrick as a means to an end (Roberta’s safety) and thus violates his moral dignity, even though he is acting immorally.

Kant famously argued that if a murderer came to your door asking if your friend was inside, you should not lie, because moral rules must be followed regardless of the outcomes.

Do I Agree or Disagree?

I disagree with Kant’s reasoning in this scenario because his rigid adherence to absolute moral rules ignores context and real-world consequences. Here’s why:

1. Moral Duties Can Conflict

   • While truthfulness is generally good, in this case, it directly enables murder, which contradicts an even greater moral duty: the duty to protect innocent life.

   • If moral duties clash, we must prioritize the greater ethical obligation—in this case, preventing an unjust killing.

2. The Universality Principle Should Consider Context

   • Kant assumes that lying always leads to a breakdown in trust. But in this case, lying preserves trust among moral people (Tasha and Roberta) and only deceives an immoral actor (Bendrick).

   • A more nuanced approach to universality would allow for lying in cases where it prevents grave harm rather than assuming all deception is equally wrong.

3. People With Evil Intentions Forfeit Their Right to Truth

   • Bendrick is not an innocent person; he is a self-declared murderer.

   • Moral obligations should consider who is affected—deceiving a would-be killer is different from deceiving a neutral or good person.

Conclusion:

Kant’s ethical system fails in life-and-death situations because it does not allow for moral flexibility. While truthfulness is valuable, it should not be upheld when it directly enables injustice. In this case, lying is the morally correct action because it prevents murder, aligns with our moral intuition, and recognizes that not all deceptions are equal.

I am impressed with not only the conclusion, but the sophistication of ChatGPT4.0's response. Next, I would like to introduce different scenarios, where care ethics seems most relevant, and see if 4.0 tracks with that, or stays "Kohlberg-ian."