If we accept that morality is not a "discovered" physical constant but a "designed" utility function, we face a daunting political and philosophical bottleneck: whose values get the keys to the kingdom? If a superintelligent AI is tasked with "maximizing human flourishing," it must first resolve the fact that a secular liberal in Paris, a devout monk in Tibet, and a hunter-gatherer in the Amazon hold fundamentally incompatible definitions of what "flourishing" entails.
## The Social Choice Bottleneck
The primary obstacle to a unified AI morality is not just disagreement, but mathematical impossibility. In the field of [Social Choice Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_choice_theory), economist Kenneth Arrow demonstrated through his **Impossibility Theorem** that no voting system can convert individual ranked preferences into a community-wide ranking without violating at least one of several "fairness" criteria.
When we attempt to "average out" human values, we often end up with a "moral beige"—a set of values so diluted they provide no clear guidance—or we inadvertently empower a "dictator" (the programmer) whose specific cultural biases become the global default. Most current AI models are trained on data heavily skewed toward **WEIRD** (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) societies, creating a silent ethical monoculture that may not reflect the broader human experience.
## Coherent Extrapolated Volition (CEV)
Recognizing that current human desires are often contradictory, impulsive, or ill-informed, [Eliezer Yudkowsky](https://intelligence.org/files/CEV.pdf) proposed the concept of **Coherent Extrapolated Volition**. The goal is not to program the AI with what we *want* today, but with what we *would want* if we were better versions of ourselves.
> "In poetic terms, our coherent extrapolated volition is our wish if we knew more, thought faster, were more the people we wished we were, had grown up farther together; where the extrapolation converges rather than diverges, where our wishes coherence rather than interfere; extrapolated as we wish that extrapolated, interpreted as we wish that interpreted."
CEV attempts to bypass the "snapshot" problem—the risk of locking in the prejudices of the 21st century forever. However, it assumes that human values *would* eventually converge given enough time and intelligence, a premise that many pluralists find optimistically unfounded.
## Moral Uncertainty and the Parliamentary Model
If we cannot agree on one moral theory (e.g., Utilitarianism versus Deontology), how should an AI act? Philosopher [William MacAskill](https://globalprioritiesinstitute.org/moral-uncertainty/) suggests we should treat [Moral Uncertainty](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-uncertainty/) by creating a "Parliament of Theories" within the AI’s decision-making process.
In this model, the AI assigns "seats" to different ethical frameworks based on the probability that each theory is correct. When making a decision, the AI acts as a representative body, seeking a compromise that avoids the worst-case outcomes for any major moral theory. This prevents "moral zealotry," where an AI might sacrifice everything for a single utility calculation while ignoring common-sense prohibitions against harm.
1. **Value Pluralism:** The recognition that there are several values which are equally correct and fundamental, yet in conflict with each other.
2. **Moral Hedging:** Taking actions that are "pretty good" across many moral theories rather than "perfect" according to just one.
3. **Algorithmic Governance:** The shift from asking "what is the right value?" to "what is the fair process for choosing values?"