IEFInternational Education Forum3083-49022981-8605Bio-Byword Scientific Publishing Pty. Ltd.10.26689/IEF.v4i9.15726ArticleFrom Moral Dilemma Identification to Ethical Judgment Cultivation: A Teaching Reform Study of the Financial Shared Services Coursehttps://artdesignp.com/journal/IEF/4/9/10.26689/IEF.v4i9.15726LiYuxue2026492026-10-20As intelligent financial sharing platforms enter university classrooms, teachers and students often regard them as “neutral tools,” overlooking the embedded ethical risks. This study focuses on the undergraduate course “Financial Shared Services” and identifies four types of moral risks in teaching: the dilemma of “who is sacrificed” in automated expense reimbursement reviews, the implicit corporate bias within credit scoring systems, conflicts between rigid institutional rules and exceptional circumstances, and tensions between obedience to authority and compliance with institutional norms. Drawing on consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, the study analyzes these risks and proposes actionable recommendations, including algorithm transparency mechanisms, rule-guarded audit processes, virtue-based human-machine interface design, and an integrated accountability traceability system. The findings argue that technical training alone is insufficient; cultivating ethical judgment must become a core goal of curriculum reform. This approach helps students develop prudent, fair, and responsible professional character while mastering intelligent financial tools, thereby responding to the emerging ethical demands of the intelligent accounting era.Financial Shared Services, Moral dilemma, Consequentialism, Deontology, Virtue ethics, Accounting education

[1] Li Q, 2024, Design of Intelligent Financial Sharing Platform Driven by Consensus Mechanism under Mobile Edge Computing and Accounting Transformation. International Journal of Data Mining and Bioinformatics, 28(3/4): 426–438. [2] Zhang E, Huang J, Gao Y, et al., 2022, A Hierarchical Perception Decision-making Framework for Autonomous Driving. Cyber-Physical Systems, 8(1/4): 192–209. [3] Young G, 2025, Using the Classic Trolley Problem to Teach AI Students and Researchers about their Role as Moral Agents, and Why They Should Be Subject to Moral Scrutiny. AI and Ethics, 5(2): 1877–1883. [4] McKay RB, 2000, Consequential Utilitarianism: Addressing Ethical Deficiencies in the Municipal Landfill Siting Process. Journal of Business Ethics, 26(4): 289–306. [5] Piller C, 2009, Valuing Knowledge: A Deontological Approach. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 12(4): 413–428. [6] Sanwoolu OD, 2025, Kantian Deontology for AI: Alignment without Moral Agency. AI and Ethics, 5(5): 5425–5437. [7] Aluma RW, 2025, The Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Theory and the Lugbara Concept of Virtue. Open Access Library Journal, 12(2): 1–13. [8] Li X, 2025, Application Research of Intelligent Accounting System in Tax Planning and Risk Control. International Conference on Algorithms, Image Processing, and Deep Learning (AIPDL 2025). 2025: 137941B.1-137941B.5. [9] Marandi A, Parida A, Mohanty A, 2025, Intelligent Financial Forecasting: A Fusion of Computer Engineering and AI in Accounting. Recent Advances in Artificial Intelligence for Sustainable Development. 2025: 119–130.