Trend Toward Reduced Driver October 15 2018 3248
Autonomous vehicles (AVs), are already sharing the road with us. The first pedestrian was killed just a few weeks ago, but the proportion of AVs can be expected to increase dramatically and decrease the accident rate significantly – by as much as 90%.
Right now, autonomous braking and lane keeping are advertised on many cars. The car will hit the brakes for a pedestrian or move back into its lane if the human driver allows it to drift. Only a few vehicles, like Tesla, will swerve autonomously to avoid an obstacle, but that is changing rapidly with better sensors. All of the major automakers have announced plans to employ autonomous fleets over the next few years. The discussion question asks us to look at the ethical principles and moral philosophies that need to be considered, and draws heavily on the material in Chapter Six.
An accident caused by a human driver is generally attributed to driver error and ethical issues seldom arise. However, the “decisions” of an autonomous vehicle are pre-determined by software that is written in advance. The discussion question, therefore, is not really asking about what you would do; it is asking about the ethical criteria that should guide the vehicle’s programming.
Remember that a total of two sources, including the book, are required for the initial discussion post. There are several articles in the Unit 3 Course Materials that can be used to fulfill that requirement.
I see an increasing number of articles about self driving vehicles. Whether cars will be truly autonomous, or just have an enhanced version of cruise control, I don’t know, but the trend toward reduced driver input is accelerating. It also raises some interesting ethical questions. The following is an extended quote from Forbes:
In a series of surveys, researchers asked people whether autonomous vehicles (AVs) should swerve to avoid hitting a group of pedestrians, even if that meant killing the occupant of the car. Most people gave the greater good answer, that saving many lives was better than saving one. . . .
Even when the researchers introduced variations to make it a more difficult choice, such as suggesting a family member or a child was in the car, participants still objectively want the car to save the most people possible. Just not when it’s them or their own children.
“Although people tend to agree that everyone would be better off if AVs were utilitarian (in the sense of minimizing the number of casualties on the road), these same people have a personal incentive to ride in AVs that will protect them at all costs,” the researchers said. (Parnell, 2016, para. 2-4)
We already see people driving like this, so putting the car in charge might well be an improvement . . .
Here’s the assignment:
1) Watch the brief video “The ethical dilemma of self driving cars.” It is a little over four minutes long and looks at some of the ethical questions that are likely to come up as cars start to make more and more decisions for us:
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-ethical-dilemma-of-self-driving-cars-patrick-lin#watch
2) Based on the what you learned about moral philosophies in Chapter 6, pp. 155-165, decide which philosophy seems the most ethical to you for the “decisions” that AVs will make about an unavoidable crash situation. It is probably best to avoid any of the types of relativism, since they won’t lead to a conclusion.
Making a decision like this might require weighing the value of one life against another. Should that type of decision be based on fairness, consequences, rights, selfishness, or some other guiding principle? Explain your choice in terms of the discussion on pp. 157-165. The emphasis should be on explaining your choice and how it is related the course material. At least one additional source is required. The articles in the Unit 3 Course Materials can be helpful for that. The initial response should be a minimum of 250 words.
Update the subject line of the initial post so that it reflects what you are writing about.
Reference
Parnell, B. (2016, June 24). Driverless cars should kill passengers to save lives – But then people won’t buy them. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/2016/06/24/driverless-cars-should-kill-passengers-to-save-lives-but-then-people-wont-buy-them/#675f38d34f6c