Should driverless cars kill their own passengers to save a pedestrian?
November 16, 2015 at 8:18 pm
Rather than derail the baby Hitler thread (albeit already so) I thought I would start a new one. This deals with a similar ethical situation.
I had mentioned the "trolley problem" there and a couple other places and there seemed to be a complete lack of acknowledgement. Perhaps it was too complex, strayed too far from the OP or just plain ignored on the hypothetical basis it was set in.
So, here is a real life, non-hypothetical "trolley problem" that will affect society immensely. With the advent of driverless cars, how should the cars be programmed?
A car breaks down around a curve on a steep hill. A child runs out in the street or the driver steps out to grab the tire that got away. The driverless car comes around the curve and cannot stop in time. Should the car swerve and end up going over the edge and kill the passengers or should it sacrifice the pedestrian in favor of the passengers?
This is not about "The pedestrian should not be there", that is a moot point, the pedestrian is there, what now?
What? You would not get a driverless car so it does not matter? Except that it was your manual car (or a loved one's) that broke down around the corner as the kid got a wild hair up their ass and ran out into the street (albeit only for a moment).
I had mentioned the "trolley problem" there and a couple other places and there seemed to be a complete lack of acknowledgement. Perhaps it was too complex, strayed too far from the OP or just plain ignored on the hypothetical basis it was set in.
So, here is a real life, non-hypothetical "trolley problem" that will affect society immensely. With the advent of driverless cars, how should the cars be programmed?
A car breaks down around a curve on a steep hill. A child runs out in the street or the driver steps out to grab the tire that got away. The driverless car comes around the curve and cannot stop in time. Should the car swerve and end up going over the edge and kill the passengers or should it sacrifice the pedestrian in favor of the passengers?
This is not about "The pedestrian should not be there", that is a moot point, the pedestrian is there, what now?
What? You would not get a driverless car so it does not matter? Except that it was your manual car (or a loved one's) that broke down around the corner as the kid got a wild hair up their ass and ran out into the street (albeit only for a moment).
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
