Decoding AI ethics: What do ethical tools tell us about ethics?

Abstract This study performs a systematic content analysis to map out the landscape of eighty-seven ethical tools concerning the type of ethical principles addressed, the approach promoted (technological vs. socio-technical vs. societal), and the kind of assessment endorsed (self-assessment versus assessment by others). The findings reveal a skewed representation and emphasis of specific ethical principles across these tools. Furthermore, ethical tools primarily advocate for a technological or socio-technical approach. In contrast, only a few ethical tools emphasize the importance of a societal approach. Additionally, the research highlights a reliance on self-assessments within these tools, raising concerns about the objectivity and comprehensiveness of ethical evaluations in AI development. Our findings add empirical support to recent AI and ethics research advocating for bottom-up approaches that embrace diverse perspectives, challenging the dominance of broadly stated ethical principles, diagnostic tools, and an overreliance on self-assessments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Ethics and Information Technology
Published
2025-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-025-09860-3
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Decoding AI ethics: What do ethical tools tell us about ethics?

Tijs C. Portegies, Lotte M. Willemsen, Oumaima Hajri, Maaike Harbers
Ethics and Information Technology
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Decoding AI ethics: What do ethical tools tell us about ethics?

Tijs C. Portegies, Lotte M. Willemsen, Oumaima Hajri, Maaike Harbers
article en

Abstract

Abstract This study performs a systematic content analysis to map out the landscape of eighty-seven ethical tools concerning the type of ethical principles addressed, the approach promoted (technological vs. socio-technical vs. societal), and the kind of assessment endorsed (self-assessment versus assessment by others). The findings reveal a skewed representation and emphasis of specific ethical principles across these tools. Furthermore, ethical tools primarily advocate for a technological or socio-technical approach. In contrast, only a few ethical tools emphasize the importance of a societal approach. Additionally, the research highlights a reliance on self-assessments within these tools, raising concerns about the objectivity and comprehensiveness of ethical evaluations in AI development. Our findings add empirical support to recent AI and ethics research advocating for bottom-up approaches that embrace diverse perspectives, challenging the dominance of broadly stated ethical principles, diagnostic tools, and an overreliance on self-assessments.

Ethics and Information TechnologyVol. 27(4)
Leiden University (NL), Amsterdam University of the Arts (NL), University of Amsterdam (NL), Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Decoding AI ethics: What do ethical tools tell us about ethics? — Tijs C. Portegies, Lotte M. Willemsen, et al. · Ethics and Information Technology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS