Embracing Contradiction: Theoretical Inconsistency Will Not Impede the Road of Building Responsible AI Systems

This position paper argues that the theoretical inconsistency often observed among Responsible AI (RAI) metrics, such as differing fairness definitions or trade-offs between accuracy and privacy, should be embraced as a valuable feature rather than a flaw to be eliminated. We contend that navigating these inconsistencies, by treating metrics as divergent objectives, yields three key benefits: (1) Normative Pluralism: maintaining a full suite of potentially contradictory metrics ensures that the diverse moral stances and stakeholder values inherent in RAI are adequately represented; (2) Epistemological Completeness: using multiple, sometimes conflicting, metrics captures multifaceted ethical concepts more fully and preserves greater informational fidelity than any single, simplified definition; (3) Implicit Regularization: jointly optimizing for theoretically conflicting objectives discourages overfitting to any one metric, steering models toward solutions with better generalization and robustness under real-world complexities. In contrast, enforcing theoretical consistency by simplifying or pruning metrics risks narrowing value diversity, losing conceptual depth, and degrading model performance. We therefore advocate a shift in RAI theory and practice: from getting trapped by metric inconsistencies to establishing practice-focused theories, documenting the normative provenance and inconsistency levels of inconsistent metrics, and elucidating the mechanisms that permit robust, approximated consistency in practice.