Crash Algorithms for Autonomous Cars: How the Trolley Problem Can Move Us Beyond Harm Minimisation

Hübner, Dietmar; White, Lucie

doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9910-x

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Dietmar Hübner and Lucie White (Hübner & White, under review) make a convincing case that the earliest discussions of the trolley problem—specifically Philippa Foot on negative and positive rights and Judith Jarvis Thomson on claim‐based aspects of dilemma situations—can helpfully inform the ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

Nyholm

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐driving cars hold out the promise of being much safer than regular cars. Yet they cannot be 100% safe. Accordingly, they need to be programmed for how to deal with crash scenarios. Should cars be programmed to always prioritize their owners, to minimize harm, or to respond to crashes on the basis of some other type of principle? The article first discusses whether everyone should have the same “ethics settings.” Next, the oft‐made analogy with the trolley problem is examined. Then follows an assessment of recent empirical work on lay‐people's attitudes about crash algorithms relevant to the ethical issue of crash optimization. Finally, the article discusses what traditional ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, and contractualism imply about how cars should handle crash scenarios. The aim of the article is to provide an overview of the existing literature on these topics and to assess how far the discussion has gotten so far.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hübner and White (under review) argue that Gogoll and Müller's contractualist argument in favor of overall harm‐minimization overlooks important ethical distinctions related to ways in which people can be more or less involved in risky traffic‐situations, which should affect what rights they have.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

Nyholm

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, calculating the benefits or burden of all accident participants represents a great challenge from a technical point of view. Compared to a deontological AVs that act according to fixed constraints, a utilitarian vehicle that pursues unrestricted optimization may be less transparent (Hübner & White, 2018) or at least less foreseeable before the underlying logic is inspected to explain why a certain decision was made by the AV. Furthermore, when confronted with trolley scenarios, laypersons generally express a tendency for utilitarian solutions, which may promote the social acceptance of AVs that follow such a logic (Bonnefon et al, 2016).…”

Section: Utilitarian Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Autonomous Driving Ethics: from Trolley Problem to Ethics of Risk

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2017, the German ethics commission for automated and connected driving released 20 ethical guidelines for autonomous vehicles. It is now up to the research and industrial sectors to enhance the development of autonomous vehicles based on such guidelines. In the current state of the art, we find studies on how ethical theories can be integrated. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no framework for motion planning has yet been published which allows for the true implementation of any practical ethical policies. This paper makes four contributions: Firstly, we briefly present the state of the art based on recent works concerning unavoidable accidents of autonomous vehicles (AVs) and identify further need for research. While most of the research focuses on decision strategies in moral dilemmas or crash optimization, we aim to develop an ethical trajectory planning for all situations on public roads. Secondly, we discuss several ethical theories and argue for the adoption of the theory “ethics of risk.” Thirdly, we propose a new framework for trajectory planning, with uncertainties and an assessment of risks. In this framework, we transform ethical specifications into mathematical equations and thus create the basis for the programming of an ethical trajectory. We present a risk cost function for trajectory planning that considers minimization of the overall risk, priority for the worst-off and equal treatment of people. Finally, we build a connection between the widely discussed trolley problem and our proposed framework.

show abstract

“…To a large extent, much of this work has been done for me in a couple of excellent papers (Keeling 2020) (Hübner and White 2018). However, I will argue that there are some significant flaws which were not exposed explicitly enough in these papers.…”

Section: Objections To the Use Of The Trolley Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, arguments in the trolley literature emphasise that consequentialism is often more plausible when considered in the abstract, and less plausible when one considers the implications of the theory. 24 Cases like Footbridge and Transplant highlight the counter-intuitive implications of consequentialism, challenging the principle that we should simply aim to save as many lives as possible, and they highlight the moral significance of other considerations (the idea of appealing to trolley cases, and the trolley problem, to challenge consequentialism and an-often unthinking-commitment to harm minimisation without constraints is also a significant part of (Keeling 2020) and (Hübner and White 2018)).…”

Section: The 'Irrational' Objection (And the Value Of Predictability)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Automated Vehicles: Why Self-driving Cars Should not Swerve in Dilemma Cases

Lawlor

2021

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, I will argue that automated vehicles should not swerve to avoid a person or vehicle in its path, unless they can do so without imposing risks onto others. I will argue that this is the conclusion that we should reach even if we start by assuming that we should divert the trolley in the standard trolley case (in which the trolley will hit and kill five people on the track, unless it is diverted onto a different track, where it will hit and kill just one person). In defence of this claim, I appeal to the distribution of moral and legal responsibilities, highlighting the importance of safe spaces, and arguing in favour of constraints on what can be done to minimise casualties. My arguments draw on the methodology associated with the trolley problem. As such, this paper also defends this methodology, highlighting a number of ways in which authors misunderstand and misrepresent the trolley problem. For example, the ‘trolley problem’ is not the ‘name given by philosophers to classic examples of unavoidable crash scenarios, historically involving runaway trolleys’, as Millar suggests, and trolley cases should not be compared with ‘model building in the (social) sciences’, as Gogoll and Müller suggest. Trolley cases have more in common with lab experiments than model building, and the problem referred to in the trolley problem is not the problem of deciding what to do in any one case. Rather, it refers to the problem of explaining what appear to be conflicting intuitions when we consider two cases together. The problem, for example, could be: how do we justify the claim that automated vehicles should not swerve even if we accept the claim that we should divert the trolley in an apparently similar trolley case?

show abstract

Crash Algorithms for Autonomous Cars: How the Trolley Problem Can Move Us Beyond Harm Minimisation

Cited by 27 publications

References 14 publications

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

Autonomous Driving Ethics: from Trolley Problem to Ethics of Risk

The Ethics of Automated Vehicles: Why Self-driving Cars Should not Swerve in Dilemma Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About