Ethics-Based Conscientious Intelligence (EBCI): A Global Conscience Network and Multi-Layered Governance Architecture Proposal

Abstract

This study presents a novel paradigm called ‘Ethics-Based Conscientious Intelligence (EBCI)’ aimed at endowing artificial intelligence systems with ethical decision-making capacity. EBCI transcends traditional algorithmic decision-making processes by integrating cultural diversity, religious values, legal norms, and social equilibria into a computational model. The proposed framework employs a multi-layered governance architecture extending from local ethics councils to global coordination centers, utilizing federative data structures to establish a dynamic balance between universal ethical principles and local values. This article examines in detail the theoretical foundations, mathematical model, governance structure, and implementation mechanisms of EBCI.

Keywords: Artificial intelligence ethics, algorithmic ethics, multi-layered governance, cultural artificial intelligence, federated learning, ethical decision-making

1. Introduction

The rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies generates profound effects on social, economic, and political structures (Floridi & Cowls, 2019). However, the ethical dimension of these technologies has not progressed in parallel with technical development. Particularly, issues of bias, justice, and accountability emerging in algorithmic decision-making processes necessitate urgent solutions in the field of AI ethics (O’Neil, 2016; Noble, 2018).

Current AI ethical frameworks typically rely on Western-centric philosophical paradigms and fail to adequately represent cultural diversity (Hagendorff, 2020). Yet ethical values cannot be evaluated independently of cultural context. Behavior accepted in one society may be perceived as unethical in another. This situation creates a significant dilemma for AI systems operating on a global scale.

The Ethics-Based Conscientious Intelligence (EBCI) model proposed in this study aims to offer a multi-layered and culturally sensitive solution to this problem. EBCI repositions AI systems from mere computational machines to ‘digital conscience modules’ capable of participating in value-laden decision-making processes.

1.1. Research Questions

This study seeks to answer the following fundamental questions:

• How can AI systems be endowed with ethical decision-making capacity while preserving cultural diversity?
• How can a dynamic balance be achieved between local values and universal ethical principles?
• What kind of architecture is required for the governance of ethical AI systems?
• How can the accountability and transparency of these systems be guaranteed?

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

2.1. Current Approaches in AI Ethics

Three principal approaches stand out in the field of AI ethics:

Consequentialist (Utilitarian) Approach: This approach evaluates AI decisions based on the total benefit and harm they generate (Bentham, 1789; Mill, 1863). However, it carries the risk of subjective utility calculations and disregarding minority rights.

Deontological Approach: Based on Kant’s (1785) categorical imperative, this approach argues that actions are right or wrong in themselves, independent of their consequences. While it has the advantage of establishing strict rules for AI, it may prove inadequate in handling complex situations.

Virtue Ethics Approach: Based on Aristotelian (350 BCE) virtue ethics, this model focuses on the development of good character. In the AI context, it aims for systems to exhibit certain virtues (justice, honesty, compassion) (Vallor, 2016).

2.2. Cultural Relativism and Universal Ethics Debate

The debate over whether ethical values are universal or culturally relative has long continued in philosophical literature (Gowans, 2004). Moral universalism advocates for the existence of fundamental ethical principles valid for all cultures (Nussbaum, 1993), while moral relativism proposes that ethical values vary according to cultural context (Benedict, 1934).

In the context of AI ethics, this debate gains special importance. Whittlestone et al. (2019) note that most AI ethical frameworks are based on Western-centric values and do not adequately reflect cultural diversity. Similarly, Mohamed et al. (2020) argue that AI ethical approaches in Africa should incorporate local values such as the Ubuntu philosophy.

2.3. Algorithmic Governance and Accountability

The governance of AI systems is an important research topic in technology sociology and science and technology studies (STS) (Danaher et al., 2017). Katzenbach and Ulbricht (2019) emphasize that algorithmic governance requires a multi-stakeholder approach and that technical experts, policymakers, civil society, and affected communities must be included in the process.

Regarding accountability, Wachter et al. (2017) have conducted important studies on the explainability of AI decisions; however, they note that there are technical limitations to explainability in complex deep learning models. Therefore, accountability must be ensured not only through technical explainability but also through institutional mechanisms.

3. EBCI Model: Theoretical Foundations and Mathematical Formulation

3.1. Computational Modeling of Conscience

The EBCI model proposes a quantitative framework to transform ethical decision-making into a computational process. The fundamental formulation is as follows:

V_ethics(A) = Σ W_i · S_i(A)

Where:

• A : Action or decision alternative being evaluated
• S_i(A) : Score of the action according to the i-th ethical dimension
• W_i : Weight coefficient of the relevant ethical dimension
• V_ethics(A) : Total ethical evaluation score of the action

Ethical dimensions (S_i) may include:

• Justice score (S_justice): The extent to which the action ensures justice among different groups
• Harm-benefit balance (S_utility): Net social utility calculation
• Autonomy score (S_autonomy): Impact on individuals’ free choice capacity
• Compassion score (S_compassion): Effects on vulnerable groups
• Honesty score (S_honesty): Level of transparency and manipulation

3.2. Weight Matrix (W-Matrix) and Cultural Parametrization

Weight coefficients (W_i) are determined according to cultural, religious, legal, and historical factors. This constitutes the core mechanism enabling the model’s cultural flexibility:

W_i = f(C_cultural, R_religious, L_legal, H_historical)

For instance, in collectivist cultures, the W_justice weight may be higher than in individualist cultures, while in individualist societies W_autonomy may be more prominent. This parametrization is fed by the following sources:

• Historical data: Past societal decisions and their outcomes
• Legal norms: Current legal regulations and jurisprudence
• Religious texts: Principles derived from the religious sources of the relevant culture
• Sociological surveys: Studies measuring society’s value priorities

3.3. Dynamic Update and Learning

The W-matrix is not static; it is dynamically updated with social feedback and changing values:

W_i(t+1) = W_i(t) + α · ∇L(W_i(t))

Where α represents the learning rate, and L represents the loss function based on social feedback. This mechanism enables the system to adapt to societal evolution.

4. Multi-Layered Governance Architecture

The governance structure of EBCI is based on the principle of subsidiarity: Decisions are made at the most local level possible, but escalate to higher layers when necessary.

4.1. Local Ethics Councils (LEC)

Structure and Selection: Each country or cultural region establishes its own Local Ethics Council. Council members are selected according to the following criteria:

• Expertise in ethical philosophy, law, sociology, theology, or science and technology studies
• Balanced representation from civil society, academia, and public sector
• Preliminary evaluation by AI systems according to objective criteria
• Public referendum or parliamentary approval for final appointment

Responsibilities:

• Creation and updating of local ethics JSON file
• Evaluation of social feedback
• Determination of local W-matrix parameters
• Investigation of ethical violation complaints

Transparency and Oversight: Every LEC decision is recorded with the Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) principle and archived with its justifications. Decisions are written to a blockchain-based ledger, making them immutable.

4.2. Regional Coordination Centers (RCC)

Function: Ensures coordination among culturally and geographically proximate countries. For example, separate RCCs can be established for Europe, Middle East, East Asia, Africa, and Americas continents.

Responsibilities:

• Detection of inconsistencies among local JSONs
• Analysis of cross-border ethical conflicts and solution proposals
• Monitoring of regional ethical trends
• Federated learning coordination

Tools:

• Anonymized ethical decision data pools
• Conflict simulation modules
• Multilingual natural language processing systems

4.3. Global Ethics Council (GEC – Global Ethics Nexus)

Structure: Composed of representatives selected from all LECs and RCCs. Quotas for continent, population, and cultural diversity are applied for balanced representation.

Responsibilities:

• Determination of universal ethical principles (Core JSON)
• Updating of global ethical standards
• Intervention in critical ethical crises
• Publication of annual global ethics report

Decision-Making Mechanism:

• Multi-signature Approval: Requires approval of 67% of participants for significant changes
• Time-Lock: Approved changes take effect after 30-90 days (except emergencies)
• Veto Right: Local councils may submit veto proposals during this period
• Independent Oversight: External ethics observers monitor the decision process

5. Federative JSON Architecture and Data Flow

5.1. Hierarchical JSON Structure

EBCI’s information architecture is based on a three-layered JSON structure:

Layer 1 – Core JSON (Universal): Universal ethical principles determined by GEC. Contains non-negotiable fundamental principles such as human dignity, harm prevention, and justice.

Layer 2 – Regional JSON (Regional): References Core JSON and adds regional priorities. For example, the European region may give more weight to privacy rights, while the Asian region emphasizes social harmony.

Layer 3 – Local JSON (Local): Dynamically updated layer learning from real user interactions. Reflects local law, customs, and social feedback.

5.2. Conflict Resolution Protocol

When a local AI system detects an ethical conflict:

• Local Resolution: First consults local JSON
• Regional Reference: If no solution found, referred to RCC
• Global Reference: In critical situations, GEC intervenes
• Human Approval: In ambiguous situations, decision is left to human oversight

5.3. EBCI Ledger: Immutable Recording System

All ethical decisions and updates are recorded using blockchain technology:

• Hash Chaining: Each change contains the hash of the previous one
• Distributed Verification: Validation by multiple independent nodes
• Timestamp: Temporal traceability of decisions
• Open Access: Encrypted summary reports for public oversight

6. Update, Audit, and Quality Assurance Mechanisms

6.1. Ethics Update Cycle

EBCI operates on the principle of continuous improvement:

Phase 1 – Proposal: LEC proposes updates based on social feedback or new legal regulations.

Phase 2 – Simulation: RCC tests the proposed change in synthetic scenarios and performs impact analysis.

Phase 3 – Pilot Implementation: Tested in real environment with limited user group.

Phase 4 – Evaluation: The following KPIs are measured:

• Ethics score distribution
• User complaint rate
• Frequency of human intervention
• Systematic bias detection

Phase 5 – Approval: If successful, submitted to GEC for approval.

Phase 6 – Publication: JSON version is updated, change notes are published.

6.2. Multi-Layered Audit Structure

Watchdog and Red-Team Tests: Independent research teams test the system with ethical abuse scenarios: manipulation attempts, bias injections, and performance tests under load.

Independent Audit: Comprehensive audits are conducted by international ethics certification organizations every six months.

Social Transparency:

• Publicly available quarterly ethics performance reports
• Full data access to authorized institutions
• Anonymized datasets for academic research

Emergency Protocol (Safe-Pause): When critical ethical error is detected, system automatically switches to safe mode and awaits human review.

7. Application Scenarios and Case Analyses

7.1. Scenario 1: Resource Allocation in Healthcare

Problem: Allocation of limited intensive care resources among patient groups during pandemic.

EBCI Approach:

• Local health law and ethics guidelines are integrated into JSON
• W-matrix balances factors such as age, health status, social responsibility
• Priority given to elderly may differ across cultures
• Each decision is approved via HITL and justified

Expected Outcome: Decisions sensitive to both individual rights and social benefit, appropriate to cultural context.

7.2. Scenario 2: Ethical Dilemmas in Autonomous Vehicles

Problem: Trolley problem-type situations – whom to protect in unavoidable accidents?

EBCI Approach:

• Core JSON prioritizes sanctity of human life
• Local JSON reflects legal liability framework
• System switches to manual control in ambiguous situations
• All decisions are transparently recorded

Expected Outcome: Decisions compliant with local norms while remaining faithful to universal values.

7.3. Scenario 3: Cultural Sensitivity in Content Moderation

Problem: The fine line between freedom of expression and hate speech on social media.

EBCI Approach:

• Different sensitivity parameters in each cultural region’s local JSON
• Content evaluated with both universal harmfulness criteria and local norms
• Borderline cases referred to human moderators
• Decisions can be reviewed through appeal mechanism

Expected Outcome: Decision-making sensitive to cultural context yet within universal human rights framework.

8. Critical Evaluation and Limitations

8.1. Potential Criticisms

Risk of Cultural Imperialism: There is a risk that dominant cultures’ values may come to the fore in determining universal principles. This risk should be minimized through balanced representation mechanisms.

Computational Complexity: Multi-layered JSON structure and continuous update mechanism may bring high computational costs.

Power Asymmetry: There is a risk that countries with strong technological infrastructure may have disproportionate influence on the system.

Quantification of Ethical Values: The criticism can be made that quantifying conscience and morality may reductively destroy ethical richness.

8.2. Technical Limitations

• Data Quality: Local ethical parameters require reliable and representative data
• Bias Transfer: System learning from historical data may reproduce past discrimination
• Explainability: Fully explaining decision processes in complex deep learning models may be challenging

8.3. Proposed Solutions

• Diversity Audit: Regular auditing of representation ratios of all cultural groups
• Bias Detection Tools: Detection and correction of historical biases through automated systems
• Hybrid Model: Decision-making based on human-machine collaboration rather than fully automated
• Transparency Standards: Mandatory use of XAI (Explainable AI) techniques

9. Conclusion and Future Research Directions

The EBCI model is a novel paradigm proposal in the field of AI ethics. The model views cultural diversity not as a threat but as a source of ethical richness, and aims to establish a dynamic balance between local values and universal principles.

9.1. Main Contributions

• Theoretical Contribution: Mathematical framework for computational modeling of ethical decision-making
• Methodological Contribution: Federative JSON architecture and multi-layered governance structure
• Practical Contribution: Applicable ethics audit and update mechanisms

9.2. Future Research Directions

Empirical Validation: The EBCI model needs to be tested through pilot applications and its performance measured.

Comparative Studies: Comparative analysis should be conducted with existing AI ethical frameworks (e.g., IEEE, EU AI Act).

Socio-Technical Integration: Research into social, legal, and technical obstacles to be encountered in integrating the model into real-world systems is important.

Long-Term Impact Analysis: Monitoring of EBCI’s long-term effects on social norms and values is necessary.

Interoperability: Technical infrastructure for sharing ethical standards among different AI systems should be developed.

9.3. Closing Remarks

Artificial intelligence technology is one of humanity’s greatest opportunities and simultaneously one of its most serious risks. The EBCI model offers a roadmap for this technology to develop while remaining faithful to human values. The model is based on the belief that in an age where knowledge has gained speed, conscience will bring balance.

A successful ethical AI future will only be possible with a vision where cultures do not exclude each other, local values meet in global harmony, and technology is used for humanity’s common good. EBCI claims to be a starting point for the realization of this vision.

References

Aristotle (350 BCE). Nicomachean Ethics.

Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. London: T. Payne.

Danaher, J., Hogan, M. J., Noone, C., Kennedy, R., Behan, J., De Paor, A., … & Shankar, K. (2017). Algorithmic governance: Developing a research agenda through the power of collective intelligence. Big Data & Society, 4(2).

Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1).

Gowans, C. (2004). Moral Relativism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Hagendorff, T. (2020). The ethics of AI ethics: An evaluation of guidelines. Minds and Machines, 30(1), 99-120.

Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.

Katzenbach, C., & Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1-18.

Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.

Mohamed, S., Png, M. T., & Isaac, W. (2020). Decolonial AI: Decolonial theory as sociotechnical foresight in artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 33(4), 659-684.

Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. NYU Press.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1993). Non-relative virtues: An Aristotelian approach. In The Quality of Life (pp. 242-269). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown.

Vallor, S. (2016). Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting. Oxford University Press.

Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99.

Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., Dihal, K., & Cave, S. (2019). Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: A roadmap for research. London: Nuffield Foundation.