  Due to their unique persuasive power, language-capable robots must be able to
both act in line with human moral norms and clearly and appropriately
communicate those norms. These requirements are complicated by the possibility
that humans may ascribe blame differently to humans and robots. In this work,
we explore how robots should communicate in moral advising scenarios, in which
the norms they are expected to follow (in a moral dilemma scenario) may be
different from those their advisees are expected to follow. Our results suggest
that, in fact, both humans and robots are judged more positively when they
provide the advice that favors the common good over an individual's life. These
results raise critical new questions regarding people's moral responses to
robots and the design of autonomous moral agents.
