Driving into the Future: The Ethical Implications of Autonomous Vehicles
If you were behind the wheel, would you choose to hit a group of crossing pedestrians or swerve and crash into a pole instead? In this split-second decision, would you prioritize the safety of your passengers or minimize overall harm? This dilemma, a classic thought experiment known as “the trolley problem”, has been debated by philosophers for decades. But what if humans aren’t the ones making the decision anymore? What if now, it’s up to an automated vehicle?
The advent of AVs promised to revolutionize the transportation industry, introducing unprecedented benefits in terms of efficiency, safety, and accessibility. However, as with any groundbreaking technology, these vehicles bring forth significant concerns that must be addressed to ensure their responsible development and deployment. Essentially, the responsible parties must decide how AVs should respond in unavoidable collision scenarios. This article delves into the key ethical considerations surrounding autonomous vehicles, examining the challenges and potential frameworks for navigating these complex moral landscapes.
The Promise of Autonomous Vehicles
The primary use of AVs is the elimination of human error in regular situations. When a human driver gets into an accident, they react instinctively, with limited control in their response. Comparatively, autonomous vehicles are equipped with advanced sensors, cameras, and AI systems that can detect pedestrians and other vehicles with incomparable precision, making driving more efficient and less risky. This promise extends beyond just individual vehicles but has holistic implications. Widespread deployment of automated transportation systems can revolutionize traffic infrastructure. Through predictive algorithms and the use of real-time data, self-driving cars can optimize traffic flow, reducing congestion and creating a smoother transportation system. However, to reap these potential benefits, the ethical risks must be mitigated.
Ethical Dilemmas in Decision-Making: The Trolley Problem
Ethical considerations regarding AVs are predominated by deterministic dilemmas (situations where the outcome is inevitable). However, since road conditions are not deterministic but rather have varying levels of severity with each potential outcome, this challenges current ethical considerations of selfdriving dilemmas. Currently, the focus of engineering has been centred on collision avoidance–but then how would AVs navigate an unavoidable collision, like the “trolley problem”? The goal of minimizing the probability of accidents neglects the moral implications of non-deterministic situations. The shift towards addressing complex risk ethics, of what to do in ambiguous situations, is the critical next step in the safety of AVs.
Through the application of different ethical frameworks, there is a myriad of solutions from many varying perspectives aiming to solve the ethical dilemma of the “trolley problem”. The utilitarian view chooses to maximize overall good, or in turn, minimize harm, meaning the death of one person is preferred to the death of two. Utilitarianism is a straightforward proposition, but what if the ‘death of the one person’ is the passenger of the AV? Should the vehicle have a duty to protect its passengers? Deontology tackles the situation with a strict set of rules, like traffic laws, meaning the AV would simply adhere to the predetermined permissions of the road, but what happens if unexpected conditions arise? It is impossible to apply a singular framework to a variety of potential issues. Until recently, moral philosophy has not been systematically implemented, but these issues are not merely a thought experiment anymore, so the discourse of how to address these ethical issues must be comprehensive and continuous to employ the appropriate approach.
Who Gets to Decide?
With various stakeholders, it is difficult to determine who gets to decide how AVs should react in complex ethical situations. Should it be up to developers, policymakers, philosophers, or even, drivers themselves? As the architects of the algorithms that guide these vehicles, developers are the ones tasked with embedding ethical frameworks into the software, essentially programming the AV’s moral compass. Even though they will be the ones to implement the ethical solution technically, whether or not they should be responsible for making the critical decisions about how an AV should respond in lifeand-death scenarios is debatable. With policymakers, who can influence the standards of AV ethics, it is difficult to say if government bodies should be fully responsible for a decision that affects lives inside the vehicle. Selecting the responsible party is an impossible task as morals aren’t consistent across different entities. In dealing with life-or-death, there cannot be the interference of subjective biases toward saving one person in a car accident over another. There must be cooperative agreements to include the perspectives of varying parties in coming up with a solution to train these algorithms.
How to Determine Liability in a Crash
Who is responsible for a crash if it’s pre-programmed? Under standard conditions, the person at fault is the one driving the car, but when an AV is simply carrying out its programming, does this mean the car’s developers are responsible for the accident? Or the manufacturer? Or even the government that approved the technology? Accident liability with autonomous vehicles requires a broader assessment of responsibility. Key considerations include the role of the vehicle’s manufacturer in ensuring the safety and reliability of the technology, the software developers who program the vehicle’s decision-making algorithms, and the owner’s adherence to operational guidelines. As technological advancements challenge traditional expectations, legal frameworks must adapt, establishing clear liability standards to ensure proper accountability.
The Future of Ethics in Autonomous Vehicles
Essentially, determining a suitable approach to addressing complicated ethical issues in AVs is determined by distributing the risk associated with a collision, considering both the number of potential collision victims and the severity of harm. In a study conducted by Krügel and Uhl in Germany, their research determined that in a situation where an AV will collide with five innocent bystanders or swerve and hit one, individuals tend to demonstrate a utilitarian viewpoint, minimizing the amount of harm done to the least number of people. Determining whether this ethical framework is the optimal solution for all AV ethical dilemmas is complex, but it serves as a starting point. At Ford Motor Co., they prioritize a corporate policy that states: always follow the law, aligning with the deontological theory of ethics. It seems that different cultures will maintain varying ethical standards, so a universal solution is unachievable, but weighing different perspectives can help guide decision-makers to a more holistic solution.
Conclusion
The ethical concerns surrounding self-driving technology are complex and multifaceted, touching on issues of safety, equity, and accountability. Addressing these concerns is essential to ensure responsible and fair implementation of AV technology. As we move towards an autonomous future, we must navigate these ethical landscapes with care and foresight, ensuring that the benefits of AV technology are realized while balancing the potential risks. The classic trolley problem illustrates the moral dilemmas of complex risk ethics, and in the context of autonomous vehicles, these decisions are preprogrammed. By reflecting on this thought experiment, we can better understand the gravity of the ethical decisions embedded in autonomous technology and work towards solutions that uphold our moral values.