Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 685-698 |
| Number of pages | 14 |
| Journal | Ethical Theory and Moral Practice |
| Volume | 21 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| Publication status | Published - 24 Jul 2018 |
Abstract
The prospective introduction of autonomous cars into public traffic raises the question of how such systems should behave when an accident is inevitable. Due to concerns with self-interest and liberal legitimacy that have become paramount in the emerging debate, a contractarian framework seems to provide a particularly attractive means of approaching this problem. We examine one such attempt, which derives a harm minimisation rule from the assumptions of rational self-interest and ignorance of one’s position in a future accident. We contend, however, that both contractarian approaches and harm minimisation standards are flawed, due to a failure to account for the fundamental difference between those ‘involved’ and ‘uninvolved’ in an impending crash. Drawing from classical works on the trolley problem, we show how this notion can be substantiated by reference to either the distinction between negative and positive rights, or to differences in people’s claims. By supplementing harm minimisation with corresponding constraints, we can develop crash algorithms for autonomous cars which are both ethically adequate and promise to overcome certain significant practical barriers to implementation.
Keywords
- Autonomous cars, Crash algorithms, Harm minimisation, Self-driving vehicles, Trolley problem
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Philosophy
- Social Sciences(all)
- Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol. 21, No. 3, 24.07.2018, p. 685-698.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Crash Algorithms for Autonomous Cars
T2 - How the Trolley Problem Can Move Us Beyond Harm Minimisation
AU - Hübner, Dietmar
AU - White, Lucie
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2018, Springer Nature B.V.
PY - 2018/7/24
Y1 - 2018/7/24
N2 - The prospective introduction of autonomous cars into public traffic raises the question of how such systems should behave when an accident is inevitable. Due to concerns with self-interest and liberal legitimacy that have become paramount in the emerging debate, a contractarian framework seems to provide a particularly attractive means of approaching this problem. We examine one such attempt, which derives a harm minimisation rule from the assumptions of rational self-interest and ignorance of one’s position in a future accident. We contend, however, that both contractarian approaches and harm minimisation standards are flawed, due to a failure to account for the fundamental difference between those ‘involved’ and ‘uninvolved’ in an impending crash. Drawing from classical works on the trolley problem, we show how this notion can be substantiated by reference to either the distinction between negative and positive rights, or to differences in people’s claims. By supplementing harm minimisation with corresponding constraints, we can develop crash algorithms for autonomous cars which are both ethically adequate and promise to overcome certain significant practical barriers to implementation.
AB - The prospective introduction of autonomous cars into public traffic raises the question of how such systems should behave when an accident is inevitable. Due to concerns with self-interest and liberal legitimacy that have become paramount in the emerging debate, a contractarian framework seems to provide a particularly attractive means of approaching this problem. We examine one such attempt, which derives a harm minimisation rule from the assumptions of rational self-interest and ignorance of one’s position in a future accident. We contend, however, that both contractarian approaches and harm minimisation standards are flawed, due to a failure to account for the fundamental difference between those ‘involved’ and ‘uninvolved’ in an impending crash. Drawing from classical works on the trolley problem, we show how this notion can be substantiated by reference to either the distinction between negative and positive rights, or to differences in people’s claims. By supplementing harm minimisation with corresponding constraints, we can develop crash algorithms for autonomous cars which are both ethically adequate and promise to overcome certain significant practical barriers to implementation.
KW - Autonomous cars
KW - Crash algorithms
KW - Harm minimisation
KW - Self-driving vehicles
KW - Trolley problem
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85050564939&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10677-018-9910-x
DO - 10.1007/s10677-018-9910-x
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85050564939
VL - 21
SP - 685
EP - 698
JO - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
JF - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice
SN - 1386-2820
IS - 3
ER -