Should driverless cars kill their own passengers to save a pedestrian?

[IATIA]

I would still say assuming that whatever speed the car is going at, if it hits the pedestrian it will result in death, hitting the car is the best outcome given the original question.

Yeah, but Dad's reaching in the trunk while Mom is out in the street dragging her kid back out of the road. (I have seen small kids run out in the road all the time and parents (if they are even around at all) will usually just call out to them).

[Heat]

I would still say assuming that whatever speed the car is going at, if it hits the pedestrian it will result in death, hitting the car is the best outcome given the original question.

Yeah, but Dad's reaching in the trunk while Mom is out in the street dragging her kid back out of the road.  (I have seen small kids run out in the road all the time and parents (if they are even around at all) will usually just call out to them).

Might want to specify when making a question like this, you said "or", not "and".

[Aroura]

[IATIA]

So....that's my response as well.  I have to listen to the man constantly on topics like this, and the truth is....I agree.  Not just because he's my hubby (although he may be my hubby because we tend to agree on stuff like this, if you see what I mean).

I do not necessarily disagree with you or hubby, however, this is a new field. A software game; It is not like immoral/errant programming is going to let loose the bad guy into our world to reek havoc. Electric plants; it is not like immoral/errant programming is going to allow the power lines to slither around and attack people. Brownouts need to consider hospitals and public safety, but that is pretty much cut and dried.

The one point I disagree on is that there is a moral consideration due to the fact that the programmer does have to consider life and death situations that can be directly attributed to the device and software rather than an indirect result. The program itself will have no concept of that or anything for that matter, it will be all up to the programmer that is far removed from any situation that may arise. Granted that after the fact the programmers will be intimately involved along with the company, lawyers, family and anyone else that has suffered a loss or has something to gain.

In the first trial of 'death by driverless vehicle', any bets on how many times "moral" will be said?

[Aroura]

So....that's my response as well.  I have to listen to the man constantly on topics like this, and the truth is....I agree.  Not just because he's my hubby (although he may be my hubby because we tend to agree on stuff like this, if you see what I mean).

I do not necessarily disagree with you or hubby, however, this is a new field.  A software game; It is not like immoral/errant programming is going to let loose the bad guy into our world to reek havoc.  Electric plants; it is not like immoral/errant programming is going to allow the power lines to slither around and attack people.  Brownouts need to consider hospitals and public safety, but that is pretty much cut and dried.

The one point I disagree on is that there is a moral consideration due to the fact that the programmer does have to consider life and death situations that can be directly attributed to the device and software rather than an indirect result.  The program itself will have no concept of that or anything for that matter, it will be all up to the programmer that is far removed from any situation that may arise. Granted that after the fact the programmers will be intimately involved along with the company, lawyers, family and anyone else that has suffered a loss or has something to gain.

In the first trial of 'death by driverless vehicle', any bets on how many times "moral" will be said?

Of course morals are involved...I even linked the ethical chart and talked about why the car will be programmed to attempt to stop and not to swerve, and the ethical reason (not just the logical ones) why that is.  But your scenario poses no DILEMMA, that's all we are saying.  The only dilemma here is weather there should even be cars in the first place.

Driverless cars will reduce the number of automobile fatalities.  Period.  By a LOT. There will be times they cause them, just like seat belts kill people instead of saving them 1 time in 10,000 accidents.  And of course, some people will freak out, just like there are morons out there who won't wear a seat belt because of that one time in a 10,000.  

I expect this will eventually be like vaccines.  Driverless cars will actually be SO good at reducing fatalities, we will forget (look, some of you already forgot and this is all just hypothetical) how many humans cause automobile accidents every year.  So people will rail against the thing that saves them, irrationally claiming it is the thing causing harm. 

Here is the thing.  When I go out and drive, I am trusting fallable people.  Including the meth addicts, drunks, tons of people on ADD meds, overworked tired people, stressed out moms, etc. to pay attention and not kill me and my family in the car.  When I walk on a sidewalk, same thing.
Driverless cars are not just some mindless machine.  They are programmed by human beings who will do their VERY BEST (because of law suits and such, as well as because their families will be using the damned things) to make sure they don't cause unnecessary fatalities, and indeed in most cases, will prevent them. And they will be implemented by devices which are far less fallible than human beings.

So, we all put our lives in the hands of other people when we use the roads and sidewalks.  I would prefer to place my life in the hands of a small group of engineers who will be trained to think about these things, than the drunk lady next door, or that meth head in the car with no muffler and bad breaks because his money is going ot more meth instead of repairing his breaks.  

So again, I get that morals are involved, I just don't see the dilemma.

[Alex K]

You mean..if the sky were full of human error.........you'd favor yet more potential for human error........

Wait, what?

I see your point, I just don't see how you will get streets "cleaned up" from human error and randomness to that extent

[Aroura]

I have to ask, if we're all going to be in driverless cars someday, why don't we just cut to the chase and build better public transit systems...?  Wtf is wrong with a train...lol?

Ha!  I was just mentioning this to my hubby.  I wonder if driverless cars could lead us to more mass transit?  Instead of owning cars, could I call for one like a taxi to come pick me up, tell it where to drop me off? There would still be a lot if individual cars needed in this scenario, but much less than everyone owning one (or even 2).  There might be driverless busses, as well.  

I'm all for going back to the days of trolly's and streetcars, but with modern tech.  Screw everyone having to own a their own car.

But..capitalism will keep that from happening.

[Edwardo Piet]

It just seems like a spectacularly well timed homicide, if you know exactly when to get into your car, in order to make it override it's own programming of not hitting pedestrians, in order to kill a pedestrian. I just don't see how someone could possibly use the car to their advantage in that way.

I made it clear that I was being hypothetical. I was demonstrating a point.

[Napoléon]

And they thought Apple was wasting time and effort with the iPad.

More than a little different if you ask me. iPads don't really have the same propensity to affect transport related deaths as what airships or driverless cars do. My whole point centred around the fact that people think it's a nice idea until someone is killed as a result of it not being safe enough for mass use.

[Longhorn]

8 pages in and I'm still amazed that driverless cars are a thing. Cheers from Underarocksville .-.