Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40385506›Full record

ArticleAI & society2025

Rage against the authority machines: how to design artificial moral advisors for moral enhancement.

Ethan Landes, Cristina Voinea, Radu Uszkai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AI & society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ethan LandesDepartment of Philosophy, University of Zurich, Zürichbergstrasse 43, 8044 Zurich, Switzerland.
Cristina VoineaUehiro Oxford Institute, University of Oxford, LittleGate House, 16-17 Saint Ebbe's St, Oxford, OX1 1PT UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4654-0697
Radu UszkaiResearch Centre in Applied Ethics, University of Bucharest, Splaiul Independenţei No. 20, Bucharest, Romania.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-8015

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper aims to clear up the epistemology of learning morality from artificial moral advisors (AMAs). We start with a brief consideration of what counts as moral enhancement and consider the risk of deskilling raised by machines that offer moral advice. We then shift focus to the epistemology of moral advice and show when and under what conditions moral advice can lead to enhancement. We argue that people's motivational dispositions are enhanced by inspiring people to act morally, instead of merely telling them how to act. Drawing upon these insights, we claim that if AMAs are to genuinely enhance people morally, they should be designed as inspiration and not authority machines. In the final section, we evaluate existing AMA models to shed light on which holds the most promise for helping to make users better moral agents.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceArtificial moral advisorsDeferenceMoral adviceMoral enhancement

Identifiers

PMID40385506
PMCPMC12078386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.