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

Abstract

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?

How to program autonomous vehicle (AV) crash algorithms: an Islamic ethical perspective

“…However, it has been argued that utilitarian moral choices are often more plausible in abstract situations but less acceptable when considering additional variables and ethical values in practical contexts (Lawlor, 2009). In contrast, Lawlor (2022) seems to lean toward a deontological approach to AV programming ethics. He asserts that AVs should not be programmed to swerve in situations where they would have to choose between harming one person or a larger group of people.…”

Leading Edge or Bleeding Edge: Designing a Framework for the Adoption of AI Technology in an Educational Organization

“…This further clarifies that the ethical issues associated with AI will be increasing in the future, and they must be taken into consideration when developing or implementing AI. For example, the ethical issues coming from self-driving cars [69] and robotics (and their vast applications in different fields) need to be addressed [70].…”

“…These are some essential questions to be addressed before and after the technology adoption. Technology is getting more advanced and so more complex [69]; its adoption at any firm is getting highly uncertain and risky [124]. AI Technology adoption comes with expectations and solutions, but the uncertainty and risks associated with every technology demand monitoring and controlling the technology adoption process and the outcomes [125].…”

Ethics, Safety, and Autonomous Vehicles

“…What most people call the Trolley Problem is really a "trolley case." 1 The original Trolley Problem compared the person at the switch to a doctor deciding whether to harvest the organs of one person to save five. The "problem" was to explain why there is universal He is currently investigating ethics as a foundational domain of knowledge for robots and other AIs that may act as members of human society.…”