Implementable Ethics for Autonomous Vehicles

Gerdes, J. Christian; Thornton, Sarah M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48847-8_5

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They investigate what these theories might imply here, while often raising worries about using these different theories in such arguments. Or they investigate whether it would at all be possible to program self‐driving cars using algorithms based on these moral theories (e.g., Gerdes & Thornton, ; Kumfer & Burgess, ).…”

Section: Part I: What To Do About Unavoidable Crashes?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

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

Section: Part I: What To Do About Unavoidable Crashes?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

“…Admittedly, the cogency of the Ethical Valence Theory is hampered by a familiar computational shortcoming: the reliance on the calculation of the degree of harm liable to be sustained by individual road users. In the literature on AV ethics, this is a recurring problem (Gerdes and Thornton 2015;Leben 2017;Lin et al 2017), as many ethics policies which aim at harm or risk minimization lack the informational certainty necessary to effectively predict the harmfulness of individual collisions. In this respect, the Ethical Valence Theory is vulnerable to similar criticisms.…”

Section: Moral Profilesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical Decision Making in Autonomous Vehicles: The AV Ethics Project

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ethics of autonomous vehicles (AV) has received a great amount of attention in recent years, specifically in regard to their decisional policies in accident situations in which human harm is a likely consequence. Starting from the assumption that human harm is unavoidable, many authors have developed differing accounts of what morality requires in these situations. In this article, a strategy for AV decision-making is proposed, the Ethical Valence Theory, which paints AV decision-making as a type of claim mitigation: different road users hold different moral claims on the vehicle’s behavior, and the vehicle must mitigate these claims as it makes decisions about its environment. Using the context of autonomous vehicles, the harm produced by an action and the uncertainties connected to it are quantified and accounted for through deliberation, resulting in an ethical implementation coherent with reality. The goal of this approach is not to define how moral theory requires vehicles to behave, but rather to provide a computational approach that is flexible enough to accommodate a number of ‘moral positions’ concerning what morality demands and what road users may expect, offering an evaluation tool for the social acceptability of an autonomous vehicle’s ethical decision making.

show abstract

“…Numerous ethical approaches and theories exist. They compete in value concepts and related explanations, especially in ethical dilemmas [18], for example given in DS. For deontologists, good will is crucial and not the result of an action.…”

Section: Ethical Theoriesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming

Wanner¹,

Herm²,

Langer³

et al. 2020

WI2020 Zentrale Tracks

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into autonomous vehicles is making progress. While implementation is progressing through machine learning and efficient sensor technology, one key challenge remains dealing with moral disputes. In general, traffic requires for moral decisions that might even decide on the life or death of participants. While people make intuitive decisions in accidents, a decision of an autonomous vehicle is made already at the programming stage. Thus, a concrete handling for implementation is needed. Due to a lack of legislation, this is still missing and prevents car manufacturers from a practical solution. The paper at hand addresses this problem by presenting a consensus mechanism, combining moral convictions, legislation, and programming guidelines. Based on a study of dilemma situations, moral principles of the 'correct action' of autonomous vehicles are derived. Of four principles, we confirm one, reject two, and propose one for further research investigation to form a basis for jurisdictions.

show abstract

Implementable Ethics for Autonomous Vehicles

Cited by 24 publications

References 13 publications

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

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

Ethical Decision Making in Autonomous Vehicles: The AV Ethics Project

A Moral Consensus Mechanism for Autonomous Driving: Towards a Law-compliant Basis of Logic Programming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About