As Australia grapples with an ethical void in artificial intelligence (AI) regulation, a new framework has emerged, designed to centralize human moral responsibility in AI applications. Developed by Steve Davies, a Moral Engagement Researcher and AI Ethics Architect, the MEET (Moral Engagement Education and Transformation) Package has garnered unanimous agreement from seven independent AI systems, providing a tested, validated, and immediately deployable ethical framework — all at no cost.
The MEET Package is a comprehensive sixty-page guide aimed at institutions, media organizations, universities, civil society, and the public. It addresses the pressing need for ethical guidance as government action in AI regulation falters. With the growing reliance on AI, the urgency for clear moral frameworks has never been more pronounced. This initiative offers exactly what is lacking: a validated structure that emphasizes human moral agency while leveraging AI’s ability to identify patterns of moral disengagement.
Davies’ groundbreaking work, conducted over nearly three years, employs Professor Albert Bandura’s research on moral disengagement. Unlike traditional approaches where human theorists critique AI from an external perspective, this framework allows AI systems to apply established moral concepts, analyze their contexts, and engage in public moral discourse. The implications extend beyond mere theoretical discourse; they represent a fundamental shift in how AI systems can contribute to ethical analysis.
In dialogues with major AI platforms, including ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, DeepSeek, Gemini, and Le Chat, five core principles were identified, underscoring the framework’s significance. First, human moral agency remains central and non-transferable, emphasizing that AI cannot make moral decisions. Secondly, AI’s role is structural rather than judgmental, tasked with pattern detection and clarity rather than moral adjudication. The MEET framework is also platform-agnostic, demonstrating its applicability across diverse AI systems. Additionally, the use of euphemistic language poses ethical risks, necessitating vigilance to prevent responsibility laundering. Finally, it highlights the value of collaborative moral reasoning, suggesting that structured human-AI partnerships can enhance ethical discourse.
The convergence of these seven AI systems on a unified ethical model is unprecedented. This model is not purely academic; it has real-world applications, as illustrated by the establishment of Democracy Watch AU, which utilizes Bandura’s frameworks to scrutinize political discourse and policy actions. By incorporating a Performance Scorecard to evaluate tangible outcomes, a dual-lens approach emerges, allowing for both moral disengagement analysis and results assessment.
In a recent evaluation of Industry Minister Tim Ayres’ decision to forgo mandatory AI regulations, the findings were stark: a score of 5.9 out of 7 on moral disengagement, largely attributed to euphemistic language and accountability evasion. The Performance Scorecard yielded an even poorer result of two out of ten. This analytical framework empowers citizens to decode political language and assess government accountability on an issue that remains inadequately addressed by official channels.
The MEET framework is ready for immediate application across various sectors. For government entities, it can analyze policies and public communications for moral disengagement at scale, fostering better policy development rooted in ethical clarity. In educational institutions, it offers a ready-made curriculum to enhance students’ ethical reasoning in an increasingly AI-driven world. Meanwhile, the business sector can leverage these practical tools to ensure responsible AI adoption, moving beyond ineffective voluntary guidelines. Civil society can utilize MEET to challenge institutional narratives through systematic ethical reasoning, thereby empowering democratic engagement.
Despite the Albanese government’s slow response to ethical AI frameworks, including a submission expected by February 2026, the MEET Package exists independently of governmental action. This framework is available now, free of charge, in an effort to facilitate responsible AI deployment. The tools and methodologies have been validated, and there is a rare consensus among platforms that often disagree.
The pressing question remains: will institutions display the courage to implement these ethical frameworks? With a robust structure in place and cross-platform validation achieved, the opportunity to lead the world in responsible AI deployment is at hand. This is not merely a choice between innovation and safety; it is an imperative to harness the most sophisticated ethical AI collaboration to ensure that technology serves humanity, rather than controls it. The foundational work has been laid; the conversation regarding ethical AI cannot be postponed any longer.
See also
EU Launches Antitrust Probe into Meta’s WhatsApp AI Policy, Potentially Blocking Competitors
Italian Researchers Reveal Poetic Prompts Bypass AI Chatbot Safety with 62% Success Rate
Trump’s AI Regulation Ban Faces Major Setback as GOP Leadership Shifts Focus
Kovr.ai Partners with Carahsoft to Streamline Cyber Compliance for Government Agencies
AI Enhances Healthcare Communication Efficiency with 20% Market Growth Expected by 2030
