Philosopher's Zone - The problem with "moral machines"

What people are looking for from moral advice-

1. Sometimes for empirical information
2. Sometimes for theory and knowledge
3. Sometimes for wisdom - They're looking for someone who knows what they're going through and has experienced this in the past. They'll enable us to see meanings in a decision that we weren't aware of.  

But no matter how much advice one seeks, ultimately we have to make those for ourselves and we can't escape our responsibility by taking advice.

The person who has wisdom from his history and experiences should have the moral authority to give advice. These are the people we should listen to.

 We like to pretend that we could teach people to be ethical. But you can't live an ethical life just by getting academic knowledge on ethics. The nature of the ethical is to become ethical yourself.

Part of what it is to be ethically precious, to be an individual, is to have a face and a body in which individuality is inscribed. 

Consider a thought experiment: try to imagine a circumstance where you feel as though you murdered a machine, in switching off an AI, will you feel the same way as you might if you switched off the life support for a human being? 

Our moral personality through which our ethical wisdom and knowledge is expressed is an embodied personality. For example, we judge people through their mannerism and tone of voice which plays an important role in determining whether they are serious or not.

1. Without bodies and life histories they won't be able to establish that they possess wisdom or they are compassionate or that they understand ethical dilemmas because those concepts all require these human interactions with each other where the tone of voice and histories matter.
2. The data set or the book knowledge from which the machine will learn ethics is not useful at all because what you would want the machine to be learning from is the individual speaker's moral authority which an AI wouldn't find in the data sets.

Once we start using this argument, we lose contact with the idea of machines. What is it for something to be a machine? If a machine has a childhood, life history, and has grown and is mortal, would you be able to call them machines?