In the investigation of moral judgments of autonomous vehicles (AVs), the paradigm of the sacrificial dilemma is a widespread and flexible experimental tool. In this context, the sacrifice of the AV’s passenger typically occurs upon enactment of the utilitarian option, which differs from traditional sacrificial dilemmas, in which the moral agent’s life is often jeopardized in the non-utilitarian counterpart. The present within-subject study (n = 183) is aimed at deepening the role of self-sacrifice framing, comparing autonomous- and human-driving text-based moral dilemmas in terms of moral judgment and intensity of four moral emotions (shame, guilt, anger, and disgust). A higher endorsement of utilitarian behavior was observed in human-driving dilemmas and for self-protective utilitarian behaviors. Interestingly, the utilitarian option was considered less moral, shameful, and blameworthy in the case of concurrent self-sacrifice. The present study collects novel information on how different levels of driving automation shape moral judgment and emotions, also providing new evidence on the role of self-sacrifice framing in moral dilemmas.