Technology is constantly evolving, bringing exciting advancements that quickly become part of our daily lives. Self-driving cars, once a futuristic concept, are now becoming a tangible reality. While the convenience and potential safety benefits are appealing, the rapid development raises critical ethical questions, particularly: how should self-driving cars be programmed to handle unavoidable accidents?
The rush to integrate self-driving technology often precedes thorough ethical consideration. History shows us that societal debates and regulations frequently lag behind technological implementation. We see this pattern with facial recognition, gene editing, and data privacy. Now, autonomous vehicles present a unique set of moral dilemmas that demand our attention before these cars become commonplace.
Artificial intelligence and sophisticated sensor systems are the backbone of self-driving vehicles. Proponents highlight numerous advantages, from freeing up commuting time for productivity or leisure to potentially reducing accidents caused by human error. However, the transition to autonomous driving also carries significant economic and ethical implications. For instance, the millions of professional drivers, like truckers, face job displacement as self-driving trucks enter the market.
Currently, self-driving cars are undergoing rigorous field testing. However, public reaction isn’t always welcoming. Incidents of vandalism and hostility towards test vehicles reveal public anxieties about safety risks and job security. These reactions underscore a deeper concern that goes beyond economics and emotions: the fundamental moral question of programming autonomous vehicles.
The core ethical challenge lies in determining whom a self-driving car should prioritize in unavoidable accident scenarios. Tragic accidents during self-driving car testing highlight this urgency. Even with the promise of increased reliability compared to human drivers, the programmed responses of autonomous vehicles can feel unsettlingly calculated and cold, especially in life-or-death situations. When an accident is inevitable, the car’s programming must “choose” – calculate – whether to minimize harm to its passengers, other drivers, or pedestrians. This raises the critical question: how should self-driving cars be programmed to make these ethical choices?
This dilemma mirrors the classic philosophical thought experiment known as the Trolley Problem. Imagine a runaway trolley speeding towards five people on a track. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley to a different track, where only one person is present. Do you intervene, saving five lives but actively causing the death of one?
The Trolley Problem forces us to confront uncomfortable choices between seemingly immoral options: allowing multiple deaths or intentionally causing a single death. The variations of this thought experiment are endless and reveal how nuanced our ethical intuitions are. Factors like the age or relationship to the individuals involved can significantly alter people’s hypothetical decisions.
Self-driving car technology brings the abstract Trolley Problem into sharp reality. How should self-driving cars be programmed to react when faced with a scenario where swerving to avoid a large group of pedestrians would inevitably endanger the vehicle’s passenger? This is no longer a philosophical exercise; it’s a practical programming challenge with life-and-death consequences.
Writing in Science, psychologist Joshua Greene aptly terms this “our driverless dilemma.” The central moral question remains: how should self-driving cars be programmed to make these split-second ethical judgments? Who gets to decide these programming parameters? Should manufacturers offer different ethical programming packages – a “safety-first” option prioritizing the greatest number of lives saved versus a “passenger-protection” option? This presents a profound moral quandary for both car manufacturers and consumers.
Some argue that advanced communication between autonomous vehicles could mitigate these no-win scenarios, potentially preventing accidents altogether. However, this solution relies on extensive data sharing, raising concerns about personal privacy – our location, travel patterns, and destinations would need to be continuously accessible. The advancement of technologies like self-driving cars and genetic testing forces us to confront unexpected trade-offs between collective safety and individual privacy rights.
These complex issues demand ethical frameworks to navigate the turbulent waters of technological progress. While ethicists are increasingly consulted by companies and organizations, broader public engagement is crucial. We exercise our influence through political choices and consumer decisions, but we need to be more proactive in shaping the ethical landscape of emerging technologies before they are fully integrated into society.
We must cultivate “ethical literacy” as a society and actively participate in decisions regarding technology implementation, ensuring we are informed stakeholders rather than passive consumers. By engaging in these crucial conversations, we can collectively shape the ethical programming of self-driving cars and other transformative technologies, ensuring they reflect our shared social values before it’s too late.
Stephen M. Kuebler is an associate professor of chemistry and optics at the University of Central Florida.
Jonathan Beever is an assistant professor of ethics and digital culture at the University of Central Florida.
