In this paper, I add to the recent flurry of research concerning the moral patiency of artificial beings. Focusing on David Gunkel’s adaptation of Levinas, I identify and argue that the Relationist’s extrinsic case-by-case approach of ascribing artificial moral status fails on two accounts. Firstly, despite Gunkel’s effort to avoid anthropocentrism, I argue that Relationism is, itself, anthropocentric. This is in virtue of how its case-by-case approach is, necessarily, assessed from a human perspective. Secondly, in light of interpreting Gunkel’s Relationism as a case-by-case approach, I reiterate that it cannot give sufficient action guidance.