Robot with “morals” makes surprisingly deadly decisions
Anyone excited by the idea of stepping into a driverless car should read the results of a somewhat alarming experiment at Bristol’s University of the West of England, where a robot was programmed to rescue others from certain doom… but often didn’t.
The so-called ‘Ethical robot’, also known as the Asimov robot, after the science fiction writer whose work inspired the film ‘I, Robot’, saved robots, acting the part of humans, from falling into a hole: but often stood by and let them trundle into the danger zone.
The experiment used robots programmed to be ‘aware’ of their surroundings, and with a separate program which instructed the robot to save lives where possible.
Despite having the time to save one out of two ‘humans’ from the 'hole', the robot failed to do so more than half of the time. In the final experiment, the robot only saved the ‘people’ 16 out of 33 times.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/first-robot-with-%E2%80%9Cmorals%E2%80%9D-makes-surprisingly-deadly-decisions-092809239.html#wWiAkRX
= new reply since forum marked as read
would also come with not being able to appreciate whether something is 'better' or not.
Of course, not being able to appreciate whether something is better might still be subjectively 'better' in and of itself...
Or maybe you mean better for everyone else?
Second question:
How do know that the morals derived from "actually giving a shit" are really "moral" and not "allegedly moral"?
I don't. 
How would you define the difference between real and alleged morality anyway?
Meaning, a judgment about rightness or wrongness of morals is itself a moral call.
I don't believe that, objectively- as in, the Universal sense, outside of personal human (or whatever) existence, an objective "right and wrong" really exists on the grand scale. As in, I suspect the Universe is a natural process or part of a natural process, and as such it unfolds natural-process-y, and everything we do, even our decisions and free will, are a part of that natural process. I question how much difference anything that is "done" makes, because among other things we are all so very, very small, both in space and in time.
We're kind of like passengers on a big ride.
(And morals are fundamentally around the rightness and wrongess of what is "done". The Tao, of course, does not do... but I will try, hard, not to digress into Philosophy here in this post about morals, lol)
Which is not to say I, as a human, do not hold subjective moral views. I do, strong ones. I choose, subjectively, compassion, curiosity, kindness and humor because I believe those things ennoble or at least ideally inform, what it is or should be (again, subjectively my own opinion) to be human. And I believe that violence breeds more violence, hate breeds more hate, kindness breeds more kindness, and love breeds more love. Since I don't like violence and hate, and I do like kindness and love, it is in my own self interest as well as my interest in those I care about, to try to skew towards the latter and away from the former in my acts.
Lastly, on the topic of self-interest vs. altruism, which seems to be a core point of most "morals" debates- I think that such distinctions become increasingly more meaningless the closer one gets to the zenith of realization that everyone is, on at least some level, everyone else- an expanded definition of the self makes self-interest and altruism one and the same. You know, we are groot.
But none of this is, from my mind, some grand assertion of universal truth- or maybe it is, but it's still just my subjective interpretation of universal truth. And as such, "morals" come from the inside out, like many things...
(unless one falls back upon the dread "theological argument" which is either the BESTEST ARGUMENT-WINNING TRUMP CARD EVAH or a phenomenally lame and tired cop-out, I of course subjectively choose the latter)
I would never assert that my view on right or wrong are THE ACTUAL RIGHT OR WRONG because such a thing isn't there; except, of course, for me, even though to me that's the only vote that matters.
Ok, One thing I'll say about myself, if I swear I'm not going to get philosophical in a post, the one thing I can be counted on to absolutely do is rant philosophically. Sorry. 
... your last sentence is also 100% correct, to my mind.