Cognitive-Reflective Equilibration Model: An Ethical Decision-Making Framework for LLM-Based AI Systems

The rapid expansion of large language models (LLMs) has intensified ethical challenges related to bias, accountability, transparency, and consistency in AI-mediated decision-making. While existing AI ethics principles provide normative guidance, their application to non-deterministic, probabilistic reasoning systems remains problematic due to principle conflicts, ambiguous interpretations, and inconsistent judgments. This study proposes the Cognitive-Reflective Equilibration Model (CREM), a novel ethical decision-making framework that integrates Piaget’s equilibration of cognitive structures with Rawls’s reflective equilibrium methodology, reinterpreting these humanistic theories as a structured ethical reasoning procedure. The model is developed in two stages: a conceptually grounded framework and an operational 20-step procedure (OCREM) executable within contemporary LLM architectures. As a proof of concept, CREM was tested across five LLMs—ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, LLaMA, and DeepSeek—using 20 ethical dilemma scenarios, generating 4000 request–response pairs. LLM-based evaluation confirmed the procedural validity of the model—its technical executability, internal consistency, and cross-platform compatibility—rather than the ethical validity of its outcomes. To address this limitation, a supplementary evaluation by a small interdisciplinary panel of five human experts provided preliminary external evidence consistent with the LLM-based procedural findings, with more conservative ratings: the validity of the ethical judgments was rated significantly above the scale midpoint and was associated with the procedural indicators. These results indicate that the procedural quality of CREM executions was associated with expert-rated ethical acceptability. However, the absence of a baseline condition and the single-source ratings preclude causal interpretation. Generalizability across diverse ethical domains and cultural contexts remains to be investigated.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Systems
Published
2026-07-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14070881
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

Cognitive-Reflective Equilibration Model: An Ethical Decision-Making Framework for LLM-Based AI Systems

C G Kim, Seongjin Ahn
Systems
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Cognitive-Reflective Equilibration Model: An Ethical Decision-Making Framework for LLM-Based AI Systems

C G Kim, Seongjin Ahn
article en

Abstract

The rapid expansion of large language models (LLMs) has intensified ethical challenges related to bias, accountability, transparency, and consistency in AI-mediated decision-making. While existing AI ethics principles provide normative guidance, their application to non-deterministic, probabilistic reasoning systems remains problematic due to principle conflicts, ambiguous interpretations, and inconsistent judgments. This study proposes the Cognitive-Reflective Equilibration Model (CREM), a novel ethical decision-making framework that integrates Piaget’s equilibration of cognitive structures with Rawls’s reflective equilibrium methodology, reinterpreting these humanistic theories as a structured ethical reasoning procedure. The model is developed in two stages: a conceptually grounded framework and an operational 20-step procedure (OCREM) executable within contemporary LLM architectures. As a proof of concept, CREM was tested across five LLMs—ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, LLaMA, and DeepSeek—using 20 ethical dilemma scenarios, generating 4000 request–response pairs. LLM-based evaluation confirmed the procedural validity of the model—its technical executability, internal consistency, and cross-platform compatibility—rather than the ethical validity of its outcomes. To address this limitation, a supplementary evaluation by a small interdisciplinary panel of five human experts provided preliminary external evidence consistent with the LLM-based procedural findings, with more conservative ratings: the validity of the ethical judgments was rated significantly above the scale midpoint and was associated with the procedural indicators. These results indicate that the procedural quality of CREM executions was associated with expert-rated ethical acceptability. However, the absence of a baseline condition and the single-source ratings preclude causal interpretation. Generalizability across diverse ethical domains and cultural contexts remains to be investigated.

SystemsVol. 14(7)
Sungkyunkwan University (KR)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
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.