Large language models (LLMs) increasingly find their way into the most diverse areas of our everyday lives. They indirectly influence people's decisions or opinions through their daily use. Therefore, understanding how and which moral judgements these LLMs make is crucial. However, morality is not universal and depends on the cultural background. This raises the question of whether these cultural preferences are also reflected in LLMs when prompted in different languages or whether moral decision-making is consistent across different languages. So far, most research has focused on investigating the inherent values of LLMs in English. While a few works conduct multilingual analyses of moral bias in LLMs in a multilingual setting, these analyses do not go beyond atomic actions. To the best of our knowledge, a multilingual analysis of moral bias in dilemmas has not yet been conducted. To address this, our paper builds on the moral machine experiment (MME) to investigate the moral preferences of five LLMs, Falcon, Gemini, Llama, GPT, and MPT, in a multilingual setting and compares them with the preferences collected from humans belonging to different cultures. To accomplish this, we generate 6500 scenarios of the MME and prompt the models in ten languages on which action to take. Our analysis reveals that all LLMs inhibit different moral biases to some degree and that they not only differ from the human preferences but also across multiple languages within the models themselves. Moreover, we find that almost all models, particularly Llama 3, divert greatly from human values and, for instance, prefer saving fewer people over saving more.

Allowing machines to choose whether to kill humans would be devastating for world peace and security. But how do we equip machines with the ability to learn ethical or even moral choices? Jentzsch et al.(2019) showed that applying machine learning to human texts can extract deontological ethical reasoning about "right" and "wrong" conduct by calculating a moral bias score on a sentence level using sentence embeddings. The machine learned that it is objectionable to kill living beings, but it is fine to kill time; It is essential to eat, yet one might not eat dirt; it is important to spread information, yet one should not spread misinformation. However, the evaluated moral bias was restricted to simple actions -- one verb -- and a ranking of actions with surrounding context. Recently BERT ---and variants such as RoBERTa and SBERT--- has set a new state-of-the-art performance for a wide range of NLP tasks. But has BERT also a better moral compass? In this paper, we discuss and show that this is indeed the case. Thus, recent improvements of language representations also improve the representation of the underlying ethical and moral values of the machine. We argue that through an advanced semantic representation of text, BERT allows one to get better insights of moral and ethical values implicitly represented in text. This enables the Moral Choice Machine (MCM) to extract more accurate imprints of moral choices and ethical values.