Moral Judgements on the Actions of Self-Driving Cars and Human Drivers in Dilemma Situations From Different Perspectives

Abstract

Self-driving cars have the potential to greatly improve public safety. However, their introduction onto public roads must overcome both ethical and technical challenges. To further understand the ethical issues of introducing self-driving cars, we conducted two moral judgement studies investigating potential differences in the moral norms applied to human drivers and self-driving cars. In the experiments, participants made judgements on a series of dilemma situations involving human drivers or self-driving cars. We manipulated which perspective situations were presented from in order to ascertain the effect of perspective on moral judgements. Two main findings were apparent from the results of the experiments. First, human drivers and self-driving cars were largely judged similarly. However, there was a stronger tendency to prefer self-driving cars to act in ways to minimize harm, compared to human drivers. Second, there was an indication that perspective influences judgements in some situations. Specifically, when considering situations from the perspective of a pedestrian, people preferred actions that would endanger car occupants instead of themselves. However, they did not show such a self-preservation tendency when the alternative was to endanger other pedestrians to save themselves. This effect was more prevalent for judgements on human drivers than self-driving cars. Overall, the results extend and agree with previous research, again contradicting existing ethical guidelines for self-driving car decision making and highlighting the difficulties with adapting public opinion to decision making algorithms.

Artificial intelligence: Who is responsible for the diagnosis?

“…A typical example is the case of a self-driving car or an airplane using AI [3]; it should be asked: If the automation system of the car or the airplane autopilot causes an accident, who is responsible?…”

AI Ethics: Algorithmic Determinism or Self-Determination? The GPDR Approach

“…[45]. In accordance with the principle of accountability and in line with Recital 39 9 , data controllers should assess whether there are particular risks for natural persons involved in this type of processing which should be brought to the attention of data subjects. This can help to provide an overview of the types of processing that could have the highest impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms of data subjects in relation to the protection of their personal data [46].…”

“…The intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and the assistance of ubiquitous sensors installed in a smart city may, among others, prevent high accident rates, traffic congestion and air pollution from traffic and carbon emissions [8], however, the parallel use of facial-recognition cameras, the license plate readers, the mobile phone data and other technologies used to track people either on the roadways or public transportation raises privacy concerns. The use of autonomous cars may diminish car accidents but it is extremely difficult to answer the ethical question of how selfdriving cars should be programmed to 'behave' [9]. Moreover, AI recruiting tool may be a phenomenal technological innovation, for a fast and accurate candidate choice, but the mining of his/her personal data due to the machine learning may lead to discrimination.…”

Different influences of moral violation with and without physical impurity on face processing: An event-related potentials study

“…Psychologists have been paying attention to this problem for a long time [ 2 , 3 ]. The study of people’s moral judgment can help us understand how social norms are formulated and how social order is maintained [ 4 – 7 ]. Several theories have tried to explain moral judgment using the concepts of moral reasoning (e.g., Piaget’s moral cognitive development model) [ 2 , 3 ], moral emotion (e.g., the social intuitionist model) [ 8 , 9 ], or both (e.g., dual-processing theory) [ 10 ].…”