It is a common view that artificial systems could play an important role in dealing with the shortage of caregivers due to demographic change. One argument to show that this is also in the interest of care-dependent persons is that artificial systems might significantly enhance user autonomy since they might stay longer in their homes. This argument presupposes that the artificial systems in question do not require permanent supervision and control by human caregivers. For this reason, they need the capacity for some degree of moral decision-making and agency to cope with morally relevant situations (artificial morality). Machine ethics provides the theoretical and ethical framework for artificial morality. This article scrutinizes the question how artificial moral agents that enhance user autonomy could look like. It discusses, in particular, the suggestion that they should be designed as moral avatars of their users to enhance user autonomy in a substantial sense.

Machine ethics is an area of AI ethics that deals with the development of moral machines. It is about machines that have the ability to make moral decisions and act morally. Analogous to the research field of artificial intelligence (AI), it is also referred to as artificial morality. While AI is about reproducing or simulating the cognitive abilities of humans, artificial morality is concerned with modeling or simulating moral decision-making and action. The article describes the theoretical and ethical approaches to machine ethics, gives an overview of main areas of application and discusses the central arguments for and against artificial morality.

The sciences in their broadness of disciplines, ranging from the humanities, social sciences to the natural and applied medical sciences, constitute an endeavor that is necessarily embedded in a social fabric. They are in constant interaction with societal conditions, needs, ethical and regulatory norms, and moral values. Universities and research institutions deliver findings and inventions, and educate students for society as a whole. The sciences can do this to a large extent in a self-regulated manner, but the state and the society fund research and teaching, and expect solutions for the problems of society from the sciences. Accordingly, the sciences can transcend their boundaries with society by explicitly taking into account the needs of society. Conversely, there is often only a minimal level of understanding of scientific processes and products in society. The sciences are thus under increasing pressure to communicate their internal decision-making processes and findings in a way that non-scientists can understand.