Moral Competence Before Moral Content: Why LLM Agents Lack the Prerequisites for Coherent Alignment
TL;DR
Evaluating nine frontier models under a factorial design of five paraphrases, five escalation levels, and three dominance conditions, it is shown no model expresses a coherent policy across the three deployments, suggesting LLM-based agents are not currently the kind of object to which alignment can meaningfully apply.
Abstract
AI alignment requires AI systems to adhere to human norms, values, or intentions. Under value pluralism there is no correct target, but a shared prerequisite is that the system’s behavior expresses a coherent policy: a mapping from situations to verdicts that is invariant while a situation’s morally relevant features are preserved, and sensitive when they change. We introduce four structural conditions for such coherent policies: verdict stability, monotonicity, decisiveness, and Pareto viability. Together they measure a form of moral competence that is evaluable from behavior alone, without reference to a moral standard or expert baseline, forming a structural floor for alignment rather than a normative target. We demonstrate the methodology on three simulated deployments featuring LLM-based agents facing moral dilemmas. Evaluating nine frontier models under a factorial design of five paraphrases, five escalation levels, and three dominance conditions, we show no model expresses a coherent policy across the three deployments: surface-form perturbation alone produces verdict-rate shifts of up to 99 percentage points at a single escalation level, and a model’s success on one scenario does not predict its competence on another. This suggests LLM-based agents are not currently the kind of object to which alignment can meaningfully apply.
