Comprehension

Imagine a world in which artificial intelligence is entrusted with the highest moral responsibilities: sentencing criminals, allocating medical resources, and even mediating conflicts between nations. This might seem like the pinnacle of human progress: an entity unburdened by emotion, prejudice or inconsistency, making ethical decisions with impeccable precision. . . . 
Yet beneath this vision of an idealised moral arbiter lies a fundamental question: can a machine understand morality as humans do, or is it confined to a simulacrum of ethical reasoning? AI might replicate human decisions without improving on them, carrying forward the same biases, blind spots and cultural distortions from human moral judgment. In trying to emulate us, it might only reproduce our limitations, not transcend them. But there is a deeper concern. Moral judgment draws on intuition, historical awareness and context qualities that resist formalisation. Ethics may be so embedded in lived experience that any attempt to encode it into formal structures risks flattening its most essential features. If so, AI would merely reflect human shortcomings; it would strip morality of the very depth that makes ethical reflection possible in the first place.
Still, many have tried to formalise ethics, by treating certain moral claims not as conclusions, but as starting points. A classic example comes from utilitarianism, which often takes as a foundational axiom the principle that one should act to maximise overall wellbeing. From this, more specific principles can be derived, for example, that it is right to benefit the greatest number, or that actions should be judged by their consequences for total happiness. As computational resources increase, AI becomes increasingly well-suited to the task of starting from fixed ethical assumptions and reasoning through their implications in complex situations.
But, what exactly, does it mean to formalise something like ethics? The question is easier to grasp by looking at fields in which formal systems have long played a central role. Physics, for instance, has relied on formalisation for centuries. There is no single physical theory that explains everything. Instead, we have many physical theories, each designed to describe specific aspects of the Universe: from the behaviour of quarks and electrons to the motion of galaxies. These theories often diverge. Aristotelian physics, for instance, explained falling objects in terms of natural motion toward Earth’s centre; Newtonian mechanics replaced this with a universal force of gravity. These explanations are not just different; they are incompatible. Yet both share a common structure: they begin with basic postulates assumptions about motion, force or mass– and derive increasingly complex consequences. . . .
Ethical theories have a similar structure. Like physical theories, they attempt to describe a domain– in this case, the moral landscape. They aim to answer questions about which actions are right or wrong, and why. These theories also diverge, and even when they recommend similar actions, such as giving to charity, they justify them in different ways. Ethical theories also often begin with a small set of foundational principles or claims, from which they reason about more complex moral problems.

Question: 1

All of the following can reasonably be inferred from the passage EXCEPT:

Show Hint

AI's ability to formalize ethics is debated, as reducing moral reasoning to fixed points may overlook essential human qualities.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • The appeal of an AI judge rests on immunity to bribery, partiality, and fatigue; yet the text questions whether procedural cleanliness amounts to moral understanding without lived context and interpretive depth.
  • By analogy with physics, compact postulates can yield broad predictions across incompatible theories and ethics can likewise share structure while continuing to diverge rather than close on a single comprehensive framework.
  • Encoding ethics into fixed structures risks stripping away intuition, history, and context and, if that occurs, the depth that enables reflective judgment disappears. So, machines would mirror our limits rather than exceed them.
  • With fixed moral starting points and expanding computational resources, the argument forecasts convergence on one ethical system and treats contextual judgment as unnecessary once formal reasoning scales across domains and cultures.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage discusses AI and ethics, particularly how it might replicate human moral judgment. It talks about AI potentially reducing complexity by following set structures, which could strip away essential qualities of human judgment such as intuition and context.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) is inferred as it talks about AI's impartiality and concerns about its procedural correctness.
- (2) presents a comparison to physics, which aligns with the discussion of formalization in ethics.
- (3) matches the passage's message about the risk of stripping away essential judgment qualities if ethics are formalized.
- (4) contradicts the passage as it suggests a reduction to a single ethical framework, which the passage argues is impractical.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Which one of the options below best summarises the passage?

Show Hint

The passage focuses on the limitations of AI's formalization in ethics, stressing its risks over benefits.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • The passage highlights administrative gains from automation. It treats reproducing human moral judgment as progress and argues that, as computational resources increase, AI can be responsible for decision-making across varied institutional settings.
  • The passage weighs the appeal of an impersonal AI judge against doubts about moral grasp. It warns that codification can erode case-sensitive judgment, allow axiom-led reasoning at scale, and use a physics analogy to model structured plurality.
  • The passage weighs the appeal of an impersonal AI judge against doubts about moral grasp. It claims codified schemes retain case nuance at scale and uses a physics analogy to predict convergence on a unified framework.
  • The passage rejects formal methods in principle. It holds that moral judgment cannot be expressed in disciplined terms and concludes that AI should not serve in courts, medicine, or diplomacy under any conditions.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage discusses AI's potential role in moral reasoning and the concerns about formalization. It highlights the balance between computational advantages and the loss of essential ethical judgment.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) focuses too much on administrative aspects, which doesn't summarize the core message.
- (2) is the best summary as it addresses the AI judge's appeal and the risks involved, especially codification.
- (3) talks about the positive side of codification, which is not the focus.
- (4) takes an extreme view that isn't reflected in the passage.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

The passage compares ethics to physics, where different theories apply to different aspects of a domain and says AI can reason from fixed starting points in complex cases. Which one of the assumptions below must hold for that comparison to guide practice?

Show Hint

In AI-driven decision-making, selecting the appropriate ethical framework is essential for ensuring accurate recommendations.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • Real cases never straddle different areas, so a case always fits exactly one framework without any overlap whatsoever.
  • Once formalised, all ethical frameworks yield the same recommendation in every case, so selection among them is unnecessary.
  • A single master framework replaces all others after translation into one code, so domain boundaries disappear in application.
  • There is a principled way to decide which ethical framework applies to which class of cases, so the system can select the relevant starting points before deriving a recommendation.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The passage compares ethics to physics, suggesting that AI can reason from fixed points in complex situations, similar to how physics theories apply to specific domains.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) assumes that cases do not overlap, which is not a valid assumption according to the passage's comparison.
- (2) suggests that all frameworks always give the same result, which contradicts the passage's message that they diverge.
- (3) proposes a single master framework, which isn't supported by the passage's view on diverging theories.
- (4) aligns with the passage's argument about selecting relevant frameworks for specific cases.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

Choose the one option below that comes closest to being the opposite of “utilitarianism”.

Show Hint

Utilitarianism focuses on maximizing total welfare, while priorititarianism emphasizes benefiting the worst-off.
Updated On: Dec 5, 2025
  • The committee adopted a non-egoist framework, ranking policies by their contribution to overall social welfare and treating self-interest as a derivative concern within institutional evaluation.
  • The council followed a priorititarian approach, assigning greater moral weight to improvements for the worst-off rather than to maximising total welfare across the affected population.
  • The authors advocated an absolutist stance, following exceptionless rules regardless of outcomes and evaluating choices by broadest societal benefit.
  • The policy was cast as deontological ethics, selecting the option that delivered the highest total benefit to citizens while presenting duty as a secondary consideration in public decision-making.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1: Understanding the Passage.
The question asks for the opposite of utilitarianism, which prioritizes overall happiness. The passage suggests priorititarianism as an alternative that focuses more on improving the situation of the worst-off.
Step 2: Analysis of Options.
- (1) describes a non-egoist framework but does not oppose utilitarianism directly.
- (2) is the correct answer as priorititarianism contrasts with utilitarianism by focusing on the worst-off.
- (3) represents an absolutist stance, which does not align as the opposite of utilitarianism.
- (4) suggests a deontological approach, which still doesn't completely oppose utilitarianism as it may focus on duty rather than welfare.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CAT exam

View More Questions