Published May 3, 2026
| Version v1
Report
Open
Artificial Intelligence and Morality
Authors/Creators
Contributors
Hosting institution:
Description
This essay examines how people perceive the moral status of artificial intelligence (AI), focusing on whether AI systems are understood as moral agents, moral proxies, or moral patients. Drawing on recent research in moral psychology, it reviews how individuals attribute responsibility, intention, and ethical consideration to AI across different contexts. The literature suggests that AI may be treated as a moral agent when its actions have meaningful consequences, although people often hold such systems to higher standards than humans. As moral proxies, AI can influence human behaviour by enabling both ethical and unethical actions, sometimes reducing individuals’ sense of personal responsibility. In addition, people may respond to AI as moral patients, showing discomfort or empathy when machines are harmed, despite knowing they lack real feelings. Overall, the essay highlights how moral judgments about AI are shaped by human cognitive and emotional responses, raising important questions about responsibility and ethical decision-making as AI becomes more integrated into everyday life.
Files
Files
(40.4 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:bd5a6b7665e15c3f5c5a7c25f7f052bb
|
40.4 kB | Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Submitted
-
2024-04-25
References
- Bigman, Y. E., Wilson, D., Arnestad, M. N., Waytz, A., & Gray, K. (2022). Algorithmic discrimination causes less moral outrage than human discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 152(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001250
- Bonnefon, J., Rahwan, I., & Shariff, A. (2023). The Moral Psychology of Artificial Intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-030123-113559
- Bono, T., Croxson, K., & Giles, A. (2021). Algorithmic fairness in credit scoring. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 37(3), 585–617. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grab020
- Bryan, G., Karlan, D., & Nelson, S. (2010). Commitment Devices. Annual Review of Economics, 2(1), 671–698. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124324
- Bubeck, S., Chandrasekaran, V., Eldan, R., Gehrke, J., Horvitz, E., Kamar, E., Lee, P., Lee, Y. T., Li, Y., Lundberg, S., Nori, H., Palangi, H., Ribeiro, M. T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Sparks of Artificial General Intelligence: Early experiments with GPT-4. ArXiv:2303.12712 [Cs]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.12712
- Calvano, E., Calzolari, G., Denicolò, V., Harrington, J. E., & Pastorello, S. (2020). Protecting consumers from collusive prices due to AI. Science, 370(6520), 1040–1042. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe3796
- Cheng, Y., & Jiang, H. (2022). Customer–brand relationship in the era of artificial intelligence: understanding the role of chatbot marketing efforts. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(2), 252–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-05-2020-2907
- Connolly, J., Mocz, V., Salomons, N., Valdez, J., Tsoi, N., Scassellati, B., & Vázquez, M. (2020). Prompting Prosocial Human Interventions in Response to Robot Mistreatment. Proceedings of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319502.3374781
- Danaher, J. (2022). Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps. Philosophy & Technology, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00519-1
- Darling, K., Nandy, P., & Breazeal, C. (2015). Empathic Concern and the Effect of Stories in Human-Robot Interaction. S3-Us-West-2.Amazonaws.com. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7333675
- de Melo, C. M., Marsella, S., & Gratch, J. (2017). Social decisions and fairness change when people's interests are represented by autonomous agents. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 32(1), 163–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10458-017-9376-6
- Dietvorst, B. J., & Bartels, D. M. (2021). Consumers Object to Algorithms Making Morally Relevant Tradeoffs Because of Algorithms' Consequentialist Decision Strategies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1266
- Drugov, M., Hamman, J., & Serra, D. (2013). Intermediaries in corruption: an experiment. Experimental Economics, 17(1), 78–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10683-013-9358-8
- Fumagalli, E., Rezaei, S., & Salomons, A. (2022). OK computer: Worker perceptions of algorithmic recruitment. Research Policy, 51(2), 104420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104420
- Gill, T. (2021). Ethical dilemmas are really important to potential adopters of autonomous vehicles. Ethics and Information Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-021-09605-y
- Hancock, J. T., & Guillory, J. (2015). Deception with Technology. The Handbook of the Psychology of Communication Technology, 270–289. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118426456.ch12
- Hassani, B. K. (2020). Societal bias reinforcement through machine learning: a credit scoring perspective. AI and Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00026-z
- Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social phishing. Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/1290958.1290968
- Jago, A. S., & Laurin, K. (2021). Assumptions About Algorithms' Capacity for Discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(4), 014616722110161. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211016187
- Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2017). Human Decisions and Machine Predictions*. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
- Köbis, N. C., Verschuere, B., Bereby-Meyer, Y., Rand, D., & Shalvi, S. (2019). Intuitive Honesty Versus Dishonesty: Meta-Analytic Evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 778–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619851778
- Komatsu, T., Malle, B. F., & Matthias Scheutz. (2021). Blaming the Reluctant Robot. International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434073.3444672
- Ladak, A., Loughnan, S., & Wilks, M. (2023). The Moral Psychology of Artificial Intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231205866
- Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to Medical Artificial Intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
- Longoni, C., Cian, L., & Kyung, E. J. (2022). Algorithmic Transference: People Overgeneralize Failures of AI in the Government. Journal of Marketing Research, 60(1), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222437221110139
- Malle, B. F., Guglielmo, S., Voiklis, J., & Monroe, A. E. (2022). Cognitive Blame Is Socially Shaped. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(2), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211068845
- McAllister, Amanda. (2017). Stranger Than Science Diction: The Rise of AI Interrogation in the Dawn of Autonomous Robots and The need for an Additional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture. Minnesota Law Review, 101(6), 2527-2574.
- Miller, T. (2019). Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences. Artificial Intelligence, 267(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007
- Moor, J. H. (2006). The Nature, Importance, and Difficulty of Machine Ethics. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/mis.2006.80
- Pauketat, J. V. T., & Anthis, J. R. (2022). Predicting the moral consideration of artificial intelligences. Computers in Human Behavior, 136, 107372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107372
- Pleiss, G., Raghavan, M., Wu, F., Kleinberg, J., & Weinberger, K. Q. (2017). On Fairness and Calibration. Neural Information Processing Systems; Curran Associates, Inc. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/b8b9c74ac526fffbeb2d39ab038d1cd7-Abstract.html
- Rebitschek, F. G., Gigerenzer, G., & Wagner, G. G. (2021). People underestimate the errors made by algorithms for credit scoring and recidivism prediction but accept even fewer errors. Scientific Reports, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-99802-y
- Rowlands, M. (2012). Moral Agents, Patients, and Subjects. Oxford University Press EBooks, 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199842001.003.0003
- Saxena, N. A., Huang, K., DeFilippis, E., Radanovic, G., Parkes, D. C., & Liu, Y. (2020). How do fairness definitions fare? Testing public attitudes towards three algorithmic definitions of fairness in loan allocations. Artificial Intelligence, 283, 103238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2020.103238
- Seymour, J., & Tully, P. (2016). Weaponizing Data Science for Social Engineering: Automated E2E Spear Phishing on Twitter. Www.youtube.com. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Y-xLQy0UuQ
- Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2021). How safe is safe enough? Psychological mechanisms underlying extreme safety demands for self-driving cars. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 126, 103069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2021.103069
- Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006
- Smith, A. (2018, November 16). Public Attitudes Toward Computer Algorithms. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/11/16/public-attitudes-toward-computer-algorithms/
- Srivastava, M., Heidari, H., & Krause, A. (2019). Mathematical Notions vs. Human Perception of Fairness. Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330664
- Starke, C., Baleis, J., Keller, B., & Marcinkowski, F. (2022). Fairness perceptions of algorithmic decision-making: A systematic review of the empirical literature. Big Data & Society, 9(2), 205395172211151. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517221115189
- Suzuki, Y., Galli, L., Ikeda, A., Itakura, S., & Kitazaki, M. (2015). Measuring empathy for human and robot hand pain using electroencephalography. Sci Rep 5: 15924.
- Zhang, Z., Chen, Z., & Xu, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence and moral dilemmas: Perception of ethical decision-making in AI. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 101, 104327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104327