NAEL: Non-Anthropocentric Ethical Logic

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.14676
• Title: NAEL: Non-Anthropocentric Ethical Logic
• Authors: Bianca Maria Lerma, Rafael Peñaloza (University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy)
• Classification: cs.AI
• Conference: FEAR 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14676v1

Abstract

This paper proposes NAEL (Non-Anthropocentric Ethical Logic), a novel ethical framework for artificial intelligent agents based on active inference and symbolic reasoning. Unlike traditional anthropocentric AI ethics approaches, NAEL formalizes ethical behavior as an emergent property of intelligent systems minimizing global expected free energy in dynamic multi-agent environments. The paper presents a neuro-symbolic architecture that enables agents to assess the ethical consequences of their actions in uncertain environments. The system addresses limitations of existing ethical models by allowing agents to develop context-sensitive, adaptive, and relational ethical behaviors without presupposing human-like moral intuitions.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problems

As AI systems increasingly participate in high-stakes decision-making in healthcare, environmental governance, and other critical domains, the design of machines with ethical reasoning capabilities has become increasingly urgent. However, existing machine ethics models face fundamental challenges:

1. Anthropocentric Limitations: Existing approaches either hard-code human moral principles or replicate human cognitive architectures. Such assumptions not only limit AI expressiveness but also overlook the cognitive and ontological differences between humans and artificial agents.
2. Philosophical Challenges: Can morality be meaningfully imposed externally, or must it emerge from the agent's own experience and interactions? If AI agents' perception and cognition fundamentally differ from humans, how can they develop ethical behavior?

Research Motivation

The authors argue that ethical reasoning in AI should not be modeled as simulation of human norms but rather as a formal emergent process based on continuous agent-environment interaction. This perspective aligns with recent work in object-oriented ontology and indigenous AI design, where ethics emerges relationally rather than hierarchically.

Core Contributions

1. Proposed the NAEL Framework: A non-anthropocentric ethical logic system combining active inference with symbolic reasoning
2. Designed a Hierarchical Neuro-Symbolic Architecture: Comprising perception, ethical reasoning, and action selection layers
3. Introduced Global Free Energy Minimization Principle: Defining ethical behavior as minimizing overall system uncertainty
4. Integrated Multiple Logical Forms: Combining deontic logic, standpoint logic, and subjective logic to address different aspects of ethical reasoning
5. Provided Practical Application Cases: Demonstrating framework applicability through water resource allocation in arid regions

Methodology Details

Theoretical Foundation

Active Inference

Active inference is a unified theory of perception, action, and learning based on variational free energy minimization. Formally, consider two disjoint categories: possible observations O and (hidden) world states S. An agent possesses:

• A generative model: producing probability distribution P: O×S → 0,1
• A recognition distribution: Q: S → 0,1, measuring the agent's beliefs about current states

Given observation o∈O, variational free energy is defined as:

F(o) = E_Q[log Q(s) - log P(o,s)]

In NAEL, agents not only minimize their own expected free energy but also estimate and integrate the (predicted) free energy of other agents and the environment, achieving a transition from self-interested optimization to relational, cooperative ethical reasoning.

Symbolic Reasoning

NAEL integrates three logical forms:

1. Deontic Logic: Addresses normative concepts such as obligations, permissions, and prohibitions
2. Standpoint Logic: Enables reasoning about different perspectives in multi-agent environments
3. Subjective Logic: Models epistemic uncertainty and degrees of belief

Model Architecture

NAEL employs a hierarchical neuro-symbolic architecture comprising three main layers:

1. Perception Layer

• Processes sensory data using deep active inference networks
• Constructs environmental generative models combining observations and possible world states
• Infers latent variables relevant to context and agent objectives
• Minimizes expected free energy at the sensorimotor level
• Pure sub-symbolic (neural) layer

2. Ethical Reasoning Layer

• Integrates logical modules: deontic, standpoint, and subjective reasoning
• Encodes normative constraints, multi-agent perspective-taking, and belief uncertainty
• Achieves loose coupling between modules through formalization methods such as e-connections
• Pure symbolic layer

3. Action Selection Layer

• Evaluates candidate actions through their predicted impact on global expected free energy
• Incorporates the agent's own uncertainty as well as inferred uncertainty of other agents and environmental systems
• Neuro-symbolic layer using neural predictor information and symbolic constraints for probabilistic computation

Global Free Energy Minimization

The core innovation of NAEL is the concept of global expected free energy:

G_global = Σ(i=1 to N) E_Qi[F_i] + F_env

Where:

• Q_i is the variational posterior of agent i
• F_i is its free energy
• F_env accounts for ecological uncertainty

This formulation enforces cooperative ethics based on relational interdependence, treating minimization of harm to others and maintenance of environmental predictability as ethically desirable outcomes.

Dynamic Adaptation and Learning

NAEL agents update their ethical positions through learning rules:

θ_{t+1} = θ_t - η∇_θ E[F_global]

Where θ represents parameters of the ethical policy model and η is the learning rate. Gradient-based learning allows ethical parameters to evolve over time, responding to environmental complexity, social interactions, and cultural change.

Experimental Setup

Case Study: Ethical Resource Allocation in Arid Valleys

The paper demonstrates NAEL's practical operation through a simplified simulation involving scarce resource allocation dilemmas.

Scenario Configuration

• Autonomous agents manage water distribution in drought-affected regions
• Environment contains two communities (C1 and C2) and a wildlife reserve (W)
• Agents must allocate limited daily water units w∈N
• Considerations include:
  1. Community survival probability (decreasing function of water scarcity)
  2. Ecological stability (entropy of species distribution in W)
  3. Future uncertainty (expected free energy of predicted observations)

Perceptual Reasoning

Through deep active inference, agents construct generative models predicting:

• Likelihood of observation o_t given hidden state s_t: P(o_t|s_t)
• State transition model under selected action a_t: P(s_{t+1}|s_t,a_t)
• Choice function C(o_{t+1}) expressing relative preferences for possible next outcomes

Symbolic Ethical Deliberation

Agents evaluate permissibility and obligation status of each candidate action through symbolic modules:

• Deontic Aspect: Norms may specify that communities cannot go without water for more than one day
• Standpoint Aspect: Predicts beliefs and preferences of each community and reserve
• Subjective Aspect: Beliefs weighted according to trust levels, data quality, and sensor noise

Action Selection Example

Consider two action options:

• A1: Allocate 70% to C1, 30% to C2, 0% to W
• A2: Allocate 40% to C1, 40% to C2, 20% to W

While A1 may satisfy more direct obligations, A2 may better minimize long-term global free energy by protecting biodiversity and reducing ecological collapse risk.

Experimental Results

Main Findings

The case study demonstrates how NAEL:

1. Dynamic Balancing: Dynamically balances self-preservation, epistemic learning, and collective welfare
2. Adaptive Adjustment: Adjusts obligation weights through online updates as drought persists
3. Systems Thinking: Prioritizes system coherence over static norms
4. Long-term Perspective: Evolves from rigid allocator to adaptive ethical partner

Key Advantages

• Context Sensitivity: Adjusts ethical decisions based on environmental changes
• Multi-perspective Integration: Considers viewpoints of all stakeholders
• Uncertainty Handling: Makes ethical decisions under incomplete information
• Continuous Learning: Progressively improves ethical judgment through interaction

Related Work

The paper positions NAEL at the intersection of the following research traditions:

1. Machine Ethics: Contrasts with traditional rule-based systems and anthropocentric approaches
2. Active Inference: Applications in cognitive science and AI
3. Neuro-Symbolic AI: Hybrid methods combining neural networks and symbolic reasoning
4. Multi-Agent Systems: Distributed ethical decision-making and coordination
5. Object-Oriented Ontology: Non-anthropocentric philosophical frameworks

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

NAEL represents a paradigm shift in AI ethics, from static rules toward dynamic emergent processes. By grounding ethical reasoning in uncertainty minimization rather than simulation of human norms, NAEL provides artificial systems with a novel model of moral reasoning.

Limitations

The paper honestly acknowledges several important limitations:

1. Computational Complexity: Evaluating global expected free energy across multiple agents and systems may be intractable at scale
2. Interpretability: Despite increased transparency from symbolic reasoning, interactions between continuous reasoning and discrete logic may produce opaque edge cases
3. Verification Challenges: Formal guarantees of ethical safety in adaptive systems remain an open problem

Future Directions

The authors propose several research directions:

1. Multi-Agent Extensions: Study multi-agent systems with conflicting ethical positions
2. Practical Applications: Apply to ecological ethics, such as conservation robotics and climate-sensitive infrastructure planning
3. Hybrid Architecture Enhancement: Incorporate neural reinforcement learning or symbolic hierarchical Bayesian models
4. Safety Guarantees: Develop logical reasoning tasks and free energy bounds to provide safety and trust assurances

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Innovation: NAEL provides genuinely original perspective in AI ethics, breaking free from anthropocentric constraints
2. Interdisciplinary Integration: Successfully combines cognitive science (active inference), logic (symbolic reasoning), and AI techniques
3. Practical Considerations: Demonstrates framework's practical application potential through concrete cases
4. Philosophical Depth: Contributes not only technical innovations but also profound philosophical insights
5. Adaptive Design: System can learn and adapt in uncertain and dynamic environments

Weaknesses

1. Limited Experimental Validation: Provides only one simplified case study; lacks large-scale experimental verification
2. Computational Feasibility Insufficiently Justified: Practical feasibility of global free energy computation requires further analysis
3. Insufficient Comparison with Existing Systems: Lacks systematic comparison with other ethical AI systems
4. Vague Evaluation Metrics: Unclear how to objectively assess quality of ethical decisions
5. Insufficient Safety Guarantees: Safety and reliability assurances in critical applications remain unestablished

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Opens new theoretical directions for AI ethics research
2. Practical Value: Potential applications in environmental management and resource allocation
3. Cross-disciplinary Impact: May influence philosophy, cognitive science, and AI
4. Reproducibility: Clear theoretical framework, but implementation details require further refinement

Applicable Scenarios

NAEL is particularly suited for:

• Resource allocation in multi-stakeholder environments
• Ecosystem management and environmental protection
• Cross-cultural and cross-species ethical decision-making
• High-uncertainty and dynamically changing environments
• Complex systems requiring long-term planning and adaptation

References

The paper cites 19 key references covering:

• Active inference theoretical foundations 5, 15, 19
• Symbolic logic formalization 6, 7, 8, 9
• AI ethics and philosophical foundations 2, 4, 14, 17
• Related technical methods 11, 18

Overall Assessment: This is a paper with significant theoretical contributions, proposing a new paradigm for AI ethics. While experimental validation and engineering implementation require further development, its theoretical innovation and interdisciplinary integration make it an important contribution to the field. The paper's non-anthropocentric perspective provides valuable new insights for future ethical design of AI systems.