The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Responsible AI and moral responsibility: a common appreciation
Abstract
Responsibility is among the most widespread buzzwords in the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics. Yet, the term often remains unsubstantiated when employed in these important technological domains. Indeed, notions like ‘responsible AI’ and ‘responsible robotics’ may sound appealing, for they seem to convey a sense of moral goodness or ethical approval, thereby inciting psychological connections to self-regulation, social acceptance, or political correctness. For AI and ethics to come together in truly harmonious ways, we will need to work toward establishing a common appreciation. In this commentary, I breakdown three varieties of the term and invoke insights from the analytic ethics literature as a means of offering a robust understanding of moral responsibility in emerging technology. While I do not wish to accuse any parties of incorrect usage, my hope is that together researchers in AI and ethics can be better positioned to appreciate and to develop notions of responsibility for technological domains.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A general awareness of AI ethics can be a prerequisite for responsible AI use”
From Assessment of AI ethical reflection: the development and validation of the AI ethical reflection scale (AIERS) for university students (2025) · cites this paper as Tigard, 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The global landscape of AI ethics guidelines
Jobin, A., Ienca, M., & Vayena, E. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0088-2 · Cited by 6,220 · cited 1×
“Yet, the idea of responsibility is often unsubstantiated in these discussions [6], and indeed, it appears to be employed as a placeholder for notions like moral goodness or ethical approval, thereby inciting psychological connections to self-regulation, social acceptance, or political correctness.”
BackgroundRyan, M., & Stahl, B. C. (2021) · Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/jices-12-2019-0138 · Cited by 310
AN EVALUATION OF STUDIES ON ULTRASTRUCTURE OF TONOPLAST IN SIEVE ELEMENTS
Esau, K., & Cheadle, V. I. (1962) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.48.1.1 · Cited by 303
Mind the gap: responsible robotics and the problem of responsibility
Gunkel, D. J. (2020) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9428-2 · Cited by 174
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Bietti, E.: From ethics washing to ethics bashing: a view on tech ethics from within moral philosophy. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 210–219 (2020) · DOI
- Boden, M., Bryson, J., Caldwell, D., et al.: Principles of robotics: regulating robots in the real world. Connect. Sci. 29(2), 124–129 (2017) · DOI · Paper page
- Dignum, V.: Responsible Artificial Intelligence: How to Develop and Use AI in a Responsible Way. Springer, New York (2019) · DOI · Paper page
- Illankoon, P., Tretten, P., Kumar, U.: Modelling human cognition of abnormal machine behaviour. Human Intell. Syst. Integr. 1(1), 3–26 (2019) · DOI
- Martin, K.: Ethical implications and accountability of algorithms. J. Bus. Ethics 160(4), 835–850 (2019) · DOI · Paper page
- Mittelstadt, B.: ‘The doctor will not see you now’: the algorithmic displacement of virtuous medicine. In: Otto, P., Gräf, E. (eds.) 3TH1CS—The Reinvention of Ethics in the Digital Age. IRights Media, Berlin (2017)
- Murphy, R., Woods, D.D.: Beyond Asimov: the three laws of responsible robotics. IEEE Intell. Syst. 24(4), 14–20 (2009) · DOI
- Nyholm, S.: Humans and Robots: Ethics, Agency, and Anthropomorphism. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham (2020) · DOI
- Shoemaker, D.: Responsibility from the Margins. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2015) · DOI
- Tigard, D.: Artificial moral responsibility: how we can and cannot hold machines responsible. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (forthcoming)
- Tigard, D.: There is no techno-responsibility gap. Philos. Technol. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00414-7 · DOI
- Umbrello, S.: Imaginative value sensitive design: Using moral imagination theory to inform responsible technology design. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26, 575–595 (2020) · DOI
- Van Oudheusden, M.: Where are the politics in responsible innovation? European governance, technology assessments, and beyond. J. Responsib. Innov. 1(1), 67–86 (2014) · DOI
- van Wynsberghe, A., Donhauser, J.: The dawning of the ethics of environmental robots. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24(6), 1777–1800 (2018) · DOI
- Coeckelbergh, M.: Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Sci. Eng. Ethics 26(4), 2051–2068 (2020) · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Survey of Explainable AI Techniques in Healthcare
Chaddad, A., Peng, J., Xu, J., & Bouridane, A. (2023) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s23020634 · Cited by 591
Responsible AI for Digital Health: a Synthesis and a Research Agenda
Trocin, C., Mikalef, P., Papamitsiou, Z., & Conboy, K. (2023) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10146-4 · Cited by 205
Wang, Z., Chai, C.-S., Li, J., & Lee, V. W. Y. (2025) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-025-00519-z · Cited by 78
Capable but Amoral? Comparing AI and Human Expert Collaboration in Ethical Decision Making
Tolmeijer, S., Christen, M., Kandul, S., Kneer, M., & Bernstein, A. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517732 · Cited by 70
From computer ethics and the ethics of AI towards an ethics of digital ecosystems
Stahl, B. C. (2022) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-021-00080-1 · Cited by 68
Metadata
- Authors
- Tigard, D. W.
- Venue
- AI and Ethics
- Published
- 2020-10-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 113-117
- ISSN
- 2730-5953
- 2730-5961
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 4
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Technische Universität München
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review