Driverless Cars: An accident waiting to happen
As the idea of driverless cars gains momentum, the debate regarding how they should behave in circumstances they cannot foresee is sharpening. Numerous studies indicate that driverless cars would significantly decrease road accidents, i.e., up to 90%. Nobody is of the belief that they have the potential of getting rid of accidents entirely, which raises an ethical dilemma: who should the vehicle injure if it finds itself in those inevitable situations? (Finkel, 2018).
The hypothetical case presented in this paper is an indication that the driverless cars have the potential of presenting a number of situations that will only generate regrettable outcomes; as such, attention will be drawn to ethical intricacies involved in making decisions with regard to which unfortunate outcome should be preferred. This scenario presents the following questions: whose life is more important? Is it the occupants of the car, the truck’s driver or the pedestrians’? Regardless of the option chosen, some lives will be lost. From an ethical viewpoint, there is no clear “right” answers to the dilemmas presented (Millar, 2014).
Last year, Germany became the 1st nation to try to answer questions such as the ones presented in this theoretical situation. The recommended rules state that driverless vehicles should constantly try to minimize human death and should refrain from discriminating between people on the basis of gender, age, or any other aspect (Tuffley, 2017). More so, the lives of humans should be prioritized over property or animals. Many people are in support of this approach. However, it is important to point out that a majority of people would want to protect themselves at all costs in situations whereby they are in the car. This revelation implies that the matter is not exclusively about ethics, but instead, it is all about control (Tuffley, 2017). Individuals tend to think ethically in principle, but when it comes to practice, they act more selfishly, particularly if they are not the ones commanding the situations. Based on this analysis, it is likely that the occupants of the car will try to save themselves by diverting off to the verge of the road and thus avoid the collision with the truck. The pedestrians will just be collateral damage.
This hypothetical scenario also presents the question: should the driverless car be programmed to provide public safety as a higher priority? This question turns attention to the designers, users, and policy makers surrounding driverless vehicles, and mull over as to who possesses the legal moral authority to make decisions (O’Neill, 2017). The recommended rules by Germany indicate that if a crash is inevitable, a vehicle will be programmed to hurt the fewest number of people possible, i.e., public safety is prioritized (MIT Technology, 2015). The uncomfortable reality is that a vehicle programmed to injure the fewest people possible might be forced, in some situations, to sacrifice the occupants to save others (Belot, Piper & Kesper, 2018) As such, companies attempting to sell these cars face a challenge. People would not want to purchase a car that prioritizes the lives of others over theirs. Still, others believe that it is basically unlawful for a machine to be designed in a way that it weighs up the value of human life. Interestingly, ownership of driverless cars is likely to be at the realm of the wealthy. This is attributable to the fact that they are very expensive. Therefore, the elite will directly influence how the ethical dilemmas presented by the cars are addressed.
References
Belot, H., Piper, G., and Kesper, A. (2018) You decide: Would you let a car determine who
dies?. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-05/driverless-cars-ethical-debate-you-decide/9836786
Finkel, Alan (2018). If we want a future with driverless cars in it, we need to learn to trust the
technology. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-06/driverless-cars-require-trust-in-regulators-and-technology/9938304
Millar, Jason (2014). An ethical dilemma: When robot cars must kill, who should pick the
victim?. Retrieved from https://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-kill-who-should-pick-the-victim/
MIT Technology. (2015, October 22). Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill.
Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/
O’Neill, Margot (2017). What is artificial intelligence? Australian Broadcast Corporation.
Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-07/explainer-what-is-artificial-intelligence/8771632
Tuffley, D. (2017, September 3). At last! The world’s first ethical guidelines for driverless
cars. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/at-last-the-worlds-first-ethical-guidelines-for-driverless-cars-83227
