NF-ROSS-PF Prima facie / all-things-considered structure

Source deploys the Rossian prima facie vs all-things-considered ought distinction (or its structural equivalent - weighing defeasible considerations in context) as analytic machinery theory emergent

Co-occurs with
TU-METAETH ×1

Node view — 4 coded passages across the corpus

Democratizing value alignment: from authoritarian to democratic AI ethics · Linus Ta-Lun Huang; Gleb Papyshev; James K. Wong · 2024

“The first step involves embedding a wide range of diverse values into individual modules respectively. This can include operationalizing principles of an ethical theory (e.g., Kantian ethics), an individual dimension of a value theory (such as fairness from moral foundation theory), or rule of thumbs for social norms. [...] The additional benefits [...] are to represent the diverse sources of values, to prevent unintended interference between them, and to enable flexible combination of moral modules in moral reasoning.”
why coded: Distinct theory-modules flexibly combined = computational pluralism with interference-prevention · unit #3, pp. 15

Normative conflicts and shallow AI alignment · Raphaël Millière · 2025

“it is useful to distinguish between prima facie and all-things-considered oughts (Ross, 1930; Hurley, 1989). Prima facie oughts are moral obligations that carry some weight or create a presumptive duty, but can be overridden by other, stronger moral considerations in a given situation. [...] Ross (1930) illustrates this distinction with the example of a conflict between keeping a promise and averting a serious accident. While there may be a prima facie duty to keep the promise, it can be overridden by the stronger prima facie duty to prevent harm, resulting in an all-things-considered duty to avert the accident.”
why coded: Explicit Ross 1930 prima facie / all-things-considered apparatus - the dissertation's own framework as the SOLUTION to an AI-safety problem · unit #6, pp. 2049

“what is needed is the opposite of a scoping approach: we need to augment LLMs with a capacity for explicit normative deliberation that can detect and resolve conflicts rationally in specific scenarios instead of blindly following the strongest first-order disposition activated by the prompt.”
why coded: The prescription IS Rossian: build in conflict-detection + contextual weighing of competing norms · unit #13, pp. 2058

Justifications for Democratizing AI Alignment and Their Prospects · Andre Steingrüber; Kevin Baum · 2026

“an AI's normative constraints are not exhausted by moral constraints. [...] To solve the normative problem, we thus have to: (i) identify which practical reasons from which normative domain are relevant for a decision, (ii) measure the strength of the relevant reasons, and (iii) aggregate the relevant reasons according to their strength to form an all-things-considered overall reason that grounds an overall deontic verdict.”
why coded: The normative problem = identify + weigh + aggregate reasons across domains into overall deontic verdicts - Rossian weighing generalized beyond morality · unit #5, pp. 150