<p>A consensus on moral “rights” and “wrongs” is essential for ensuring societal functioning. Moral decision-making has been investigated for decades focusing on human agents. More recently, research has started into how humans evaluate artificial moral agents. With increasing presence of artificial intelligence (AI) in society, this question becomes ever more relevant. We investigated responses from a third-party perspective to moral judgments of human and artificial agents in high-stakes and low-stakes dilemmas. High-stakes dilemmas describe life-or-death scenarios while low-stakes dilemmas do not have lethal albeit nevertheless substantial negative consequences. In two online studies, participants responded to the actions resp. inactions of human and artificial agents in four high-stakes scenarios (N₁ = 491) and four low-stakes dilemmas (N₂ = 490). In line with previous research, agents received generally more blame in high-stakes scenarios and actions resulted overall in more blame than inactions. While there was no effect of scenario type on trust, agents were more trusted when they did <i>not</i> act. Although humans, on average, were blamed more than artificial agents they were nevertheless also more trusted. The most important predictor for blame and trust was whether participants agreed with the moral choice of an agent and considered the chosen course of action as morally appropriate – regardless of the nature of the agent. Religiosity emerged as further predictor for blaming both human and artificial agents, while trait psychopathy was associated with more blame of and less trust in human agents. Additionally, negative attitudes towards robots predicted blame and trust in artificial agents.</p>