ReviewScience and engineering ethics2020
Artificial Moral Agents: A Survey of the Current Status.
Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 143 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing a Cognitively Grounded Artificial Moral Advisor: A Multi-LLM Multi-Agent Approach Based on the Cognitive-Reflective Equilibration Model.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Advice quality and source disclosure shape trust in AI-generated ethical advice.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A Case for End-Constrained Ethical Artificial Intelligence.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Hidden Agents, Explicit Obligations: A Linguistic Analysis of AI Ethics Guidelines.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Advancements and Challenges of Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Electroencephalography in Epilepsy Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The ethics of using artificial intelligence in scientific research: new guidance needed for a new tool.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- Unlocking practical wisdom through the inner voice of robots.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The compassion illusion: Can artificial empathy ever be emotionally authentic?Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Minimum levels of interpretability for artificial moral agents.AI and ethics · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence to support ethical decision-making for incapacitated patients: a survey among German anesthesiologists and internists.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- [ChatGPT: aid to medical ethics decision making?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Article
- How AI tools can-and cannot-help organizations become more ethical.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2023Review
- Interdisciplinary Confusion and Resolution in the Context of Moral Machines.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- A Survey of Teachers' Status in Mental Health Education Management Based on Big Data Analysis.Occupational therapy international · 2022Article
- Embodied Digital Technologies: First Insights in the Social and Legal Perception of Robots and Users of Prostheses.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2022Article
- Ethical Artificial Intelligence in Chemical Research and Development: A Dual Advantage for Sustainability.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Digital Technologies and Data Science as Health Enablers: An Outline of Appealing Promises and Compelling Ethical, Legal, and Social Challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Framing Effects on Judgments of Social Robots' (Im)Moral Behaviors.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- A Deeper Look at Autonomous Vehicle Ethics: An Integrative Ethical Decision-Making Framework to Explain Moral Pluralism.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the objectives in the field of artificial intelligence for some decades has been the development of artificial agents capable of coexisting in harmony with people and other systems. The computing research community has made efforts to design artificial agents capable of doing tasks the way people do, tasks requiring cognitive mechanisms such as planning, decision-making, and learning. The application domains of such software agents are evident nowadays. Humans are experiencing the inclusion of artificial agents in their environment as unmanned vehicles, intelligent houses, and humanoid robots capable of caring for people. In this context, research in the field of machine ethics has become more than a hot topic. Machine ethics focuses on developing ethical mechanisms for artificial agents to be capable of engaging in moral behavior. However, there are still crucial challenges in the development of truly Artificial Moral Agents. This paper aims to show the current status of Artificial Moral Agents by analyzing models proposed over the past two decades. As a result of this review, a taxonomy to classify Artificial Moral Agents according to the strategies and criteria used to deal with ethical problems is proposed. The presented review aims to illustrate (1) the complexity of designing and developing ethical mechanisms for this type of agent, and (2) that there is a long way to go (from a technological perspective) before this type of artificial agent can replace human judgment in difficult, surprising or ambiguous moral situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.