Core Ethical Principles from the Declaration of Independence (1776)
Equality and Inalienable Rights: The Declaration asserts that “all men are created equal” and endowed with inherent, unalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It establishes the ethical principle that individuals have fundamental rights by virtue of being human. Government is morally obliged to respect and protect these rights rather than grant them.
Consent of the Governed: Legitimate authority derives from the consent of the people. The Declaration states governments *“derive[] their just powers from the consent of the governed”*. This foundational value emphasizes popular sovereignty – rulers are accountable to the people’s will. It ethically grounds governance in the concept of autonomy and voluntary agreement rather than coercion.
Right to Alter or Abolish Unjust Government: When a government fails to protect rights and instead becomes destructive of them, the people have a right – even a duty – to change or abolish it. This principle establishes government accountability to higher ethical standards: if a system violates fundamental rights, citizens are justified in reforming or replacing it. The goal is to “effect their Safety and Happiness” by realigning governance with core values.
Governance Structures and Values in the U.S. Constitution (1787)
“We the People” and Popular Sovereignty: The Constitution’s Preamble famously begins “We the People of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution.” This affirms that power originates from the people themselves, not a monarch or elite. Government is an expression of the people’s collective will, reflecting the Declaration’s consent principle in a concrete governing charter.
Justice, General Welfare, and Liberty: The Preamble also outlines the moral aims of government, including forming “a more perfect Union,” establishing Justice, ensuring domestic Tranquility, providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”. These goals encode ethical values (justice, peace, security, public well-being, and freedom for future generations) as guiding principles for U.S. governance. The government’s structure and policies are intended to serve these higher ends.
Separation of Powers and Checks & Balances: The Constitution establishes a federal government divided into three branches (legislative, executive, judicial) with defined powers and mechanisms to check and balance each other. This structural design is a direct response to ethical concerns about concentrations of power leading to tyranny. As James Madison explained in Federalist No. 51, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Because “if men were angels, no government would be necessary,” a government of fallible humans must be constructed so that it can govern effectively but also be compelled to govern justly. The challenge, Madison wrote, is to “enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself,” achieved by internal checks and a dependence on the people. This reflects an ethical structure of accountability: no single branch or official can dominate unchecked, protecting liberty and rule of law.
Federalism (Division of Powers): The founding framework also divides authority between the national and state governments. By reserving certain powers to the states (and the people) and limiting the national government to enumerated powers, the Constitution creates another layer of check against centralized power. This structure embodies the value of limited government – preventing any one level of government from monopolizing authority – and respects local self-determination.
Rule of Law: The ideal of a “government of laws and not of men” was a Revolutionary era principle (articulated by John Adams) that underpins the Constitution. It means the government must operate according to transparent, stable laws applied equally to all, rather than arbitrary whims of rulers. The Constitution itself is the supreme law binding the government. This instills legal integrity and predictability in governance – an ethical commitment that power will be exercised through agreed-upon rules.
Individual Liberties (Bill of Rights, 1791): Shortly after the Constitution’s adoption, the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) were added to cement key ethical values by explicitly restraining government from infringing on fundamental freedoms. These include freedom of speech, religion, and the press; the right to due process, fair trial, and jury; protection from cruel punishment, unreasonable searches, and others. The Bill of Rights contains many of Americans’ “most valued freedoms,” as it was critical for ensuring public confidence in the new government’s respect for individual rights. This legal enshrinement of personal liberties reflects the ethical principle that individual dignity and freedom must be protected even against majority rule or state interests.
Aligning Founding Principles with the Self-Alignment Framework (SAF)
The Self-Alignment Framework (SAF) is a conceptual model for AI ethical self-regulation (a way for AI systems to align themselves with moral principles and correct course as needed). The foundational values above can serve as an objective reference point for SAF, much like a “constitution” of guiding principles for AI behavior. Many of the core ideas in the U.S. founding documents map closely onto components one would want in an ethical AI or organizational governance system. Below is an overview of how these key values could integrate into SAF’s structure and principles:
Inherent Human Dignity and Rights → Value Alignment: The AI’s foundational value system should reflect the inherent worth of individuals and their rights. For example, the Declaration’s affirmation of equal rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness can translate into an AI ethic of fairness, non-maleficence, and respect for autonomy. An SAF-aligned AI would be designed not to violate basic human rights – it would avoid unjust harm, coercion, or discrimination against any person or group, treating all users with impartial respect.
Consent of the Governed → User Autonomy and Agency: Just as legitimate governments require the consent of the governed, ethical AI requires the consent of its users or those affected by its actions. In SAF, this might mean the AI seeks human oversight or authorization for important decisions, and is transparent and responsive to human input. It aligns with the principle of user agency – the AI should act as a tool of the people it serves, not an autonomous tyrant. Mechanisms like opt-in features, easy overrides or “off-switches,” and informed user approval for critical functions embody this value. By designing AI governance to be accountable to stakeholders (analogous to citizens), we ensure the system’s power remains derived from and limited by the people’s will.
Purpose to Secure Rights and Welfare → Beneficence and Non-Harm: The founding documents assert that government’s purpose is to secure the people’s rights and well-being (their “Safety and Happiness” and general welfare). Similarly, an SAF-aligned AI’s core objective should be the benefit of humanity. This involves principles of beneficence (actively working toward users’ welfare and societal good) and non-maleficence (avoiding actions that cause harm). By using human flourishing as the AI’s north star, we echo the ethical mandate that technology exist to serve people. In practice, this could mean an AI is programmed to prioritize human safety, health, and happiness in its optimizations and to flag or refuse actions that would undermine those goals (e.g. refuse harmful instructions).
Checks and Balances → Internal Self-Regulatory Mechanisms: The Constitution’s structural checks and balances – separating powers so that each part of the system can correct or restrain the others – can be mirrored in an AI’s internal architecture. SAF can incorporate a “multi-module” system where different components oversee and critique decisions. For instance, an AI agent could have a primary decision-making module (analogous to the executive) and an internal critic or evaluator module (analogous to a judiciary or conscience) that reviews the decision against ethical rules. If the decision violates the AI’s constitutional principles, the oversight module can veto or adjust it. This “ambition to counteract ambition” design ensures no single goal or subroutine can override ethical constraints unchecked. Just as Madison’s framework *“oblige[s the government] to control itself”*, the AI is built to self-monitor and self-correct. Such internal feedback loops and redundancy (akin to having multiple branches or diverse “opinions” within the AI) increase reliability and guard against failures or biases leading to unethical outcomes.
Rule of Law → Transparent Ethical Codes (AI Constitution): In SAF, the AI would be governed by a clear set of explicit ethical principles – essentially a constitution for the AI’s behavior. This is analogous to the rule of law binding government: the AI’s actions are constrained by higher-level rules that cannot be violated, even if a narrow goal might tempt it to. Importantly, these guiding principles should be transparent and interpretable, so humans can “easily specify, inspect, and understand the principles the AI system is following.” Using a constitutional approach for AI improves transparency and trust, as noted in Anthropic’s work on Constitutional AI. Everyone can see the “north star” values (for example, a principle might be “respect human life and freedom”) and the AI consistently refers to them when making choices or when explaining its decisions. This makes the ethical alignment objective and auditable – the AI isn’t aligning to a hidden or shifting metric, but to a public set of foundational values much like a legal constitution or Bill of Rights.
Accountability and Amendment Mechanisms: The founding framework built in ways to change course ethically – e.g. the people’s right to abolish unjust government or the ability to amend the Constitution to address new issues. Likewise, SAF should include mechanisms to update and correct the AI’s policies as understanding of ethics evolves or if the AI behaves in unanticipated harmful ways. This could mean a structured process for introducing new principles (analogous to amendments) or refining the AI’s “constitution” as society provides feedback. It also means having emergency fail-safes: human engineers or oversight boards must be able to intervene or shut down an AI system that is acting outside its ethical bounds – a parallel to the citizens’ right to alter a destructive government. In essence, the AI is not a “set-and-forget” system; it remains accountable to an external ethical authority (humanity) and adaptable through predefined channels, ensuring it can be re-aligned if it strays.
Promoting General Welfare and Future Well-Being: The Constitution’s mandate to “promote the general Welfare” and secure liberty “to… our Posterity” (future generations) encourages a long-term, society-wide perspective in governance. In SAF, this translates to aligning AI objectives with humanity’s collective benefit over the long run. Rather than optimizing for narrow or short-term metrics, an AI guided by founding values would consider the broader impact on society and future people. For example, it would weigh decisions in terms of justice and common good, not just immediate user satisfaction or profit. This principle drives AI to support sustainable and just outcomes, echoing the Founders’ ethical foresight in building a system meant to protect future liberties. It helps ensure AI systems remain servants to all of humanity’s interests, not just a few stakeholders or present-day desires.
Using Foundational Values as an Objective Ethical Reference
The values enshrined in documents like the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution represent a robust, time-tested ethical foundation. They were intended as universal principles (e.g. Jefferson spoke of “self-evident” truths) and have influenced global human rights ideals. Aligning AI and organizational governance with these principles provides an objective reference point grounded in widespread human moral consensus. In practice, this means an AI’s “moral compass” or an organization’s policies can be benchmarked against constitutional principles – ensuring decisions uphold rights, fairness, accountability, and the public good, rather than being driven by ad-hoc rules or narrow interests.
By integrating these core values into the Self-Alignment Framework, we create AI systems and institutions that mirror the ethical safeguards of a constitutional democracy. The AI gains a clear set of higher directives (much as a government is bound by a constitution) and a structural method to police its own adherence to those directives (akin to checks and balances and judicial review). This integration offers a promising path to trustworthy AI: one that is internally governed by the best of our shared human values, and which remains aligned with the rights and well-being of the people it is meant to serve. Such an AI, like a well-designed government, can continuously self-correct and remain accountable to those core principles, providing a stable and principled framework for ethical behavior in complex scenarios.
In summary, the United States’ founding documents lay out fundamental ethical principles (individual rights, justice, liberty, equality) and durable governance structures (accountability through consent, separated powers, rule of law) that have proven their value in guiding human governance. Those same principles can inform the SAF by serving as a “north star” for AI alignment – an objective, legitimacy-bearing set of values and structural ideas to guide how advanced AI (or any powerful organization) should make decisions, constrain itself, and remain accountable to humanity’s highest ideals. By looking to these time-honored values as a reference, we equip our Self-Alignment Framework – and by extension future AI systems – with a strong ethical compass and a blueprint for governance that is both principled and pragmatic.
Sources:
- United States Declaration of Independence (1776)
- U.S. Constitution, Preamble (1787)
- James Madison, Federalist No. 51 (1788)
- U.S. Bill of Rights (Amendments 1–10, 1791)
- Anthropic, Claude’s Constitution (Constitutional AI) – on transparent principles for AI