Question
For this case study, you will imagine that you are an engineer for a company that is developing self-driving technology for automobiles. Your technology will allow a vehicle to be driven without a driver under ordinary conditions. The vehicle will stay in its lane, keep a safe distance to other vehicles, stop at red lights and stop signs, and will not exceed posted speed limits.
However, as you know, everyday driving, especially in congested urban areas, is rarely ordinary. Delivery vehicles frequently double-park and block off lanes, people driving motorized scooters and e-bikes routinely ignore stoplights, and pedestrians frequently cross the street without paying attention. To be safe and effective, your technology must be able to deal with all of these nonroutine driving tasks.
Imagine this scenario. A vehicle using your self-driving technology is proceeding down a street in a large city late at night. It is carrying three passengers in the back seat. The vehicle is going at a speed of 25 miles per hour, which is the posted speed limit in this area. The vehicle approaches an intersection and the light is green. Suddenly, someone runs directly in front of the vehicle. It is too late to stop.
Your self-driving technology must make a choice.
Swerve right. If this choice is taken, the vehicle will smash into a parked car, avoiding the pedestrian, but damaging two vehicles and possibly injuring the vehicle's occupants.
Swerve left. If this choice is taken, the vehicle will move into oncoming traffic from the other side of the road, avoiding the pedestrian but possibly causing a head-on collision with another vehicle.
Continue straight. Your vehicle will apply the brakes but will not stop in time to avoid hitting the pedestrian. The pedestrian will be injured, perhaps fatally.
In your response to this case study, answer the following questions.
Which choice would your technology make and why?
What ethical considerations are most important in this situation?
As the designer of this self-driving technology, is your sole ethical responsibility to the occupants of the vehicles that use it? Why or why not?
What if there was only one person in the self-driving vehicle, and there were three pedestrians? Would this change the decision your technology would make? Why or why not?
Assignment Requirements
Length: Between 400–600 words
Format: Use the current edition of APA style, including a cover page.
Research: Do not use external sources.
book used Ruggiero, Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 11e chapters 1 - 3
However, as you know, everyday driving, especially in congested urban areas, is rarely ordinary. Delivery vehicles frequently double-park and block off lanes, people driving motorized scooters and e-bikes routinely ignore stoplights, and pedestrians frequently cross the street without paying attention. To be safe and effective, your technology must be able to deal with all of these nonroutine driving tasks.
Imagine this scenario. A vehicle using your self-driving technology is proceeding down a street in a large city late at night. It is carrying three passengers in the back seat. The vehicle is going at a speed of 25 miles per hour, which is the posted speed limit in this area. The vehicle approaches an intersection and the light is green. Suddenly, someone runs directly in front of the vehicle. It is too late to stop.
Your self-driving technology must make a choice.
Swerve right. If this choice is taken, the vehicle will smash into a parked car, avoiding the pedestrian, but damaging two vehicles and possibly injuring the vehicle's occupants.
Swerve left. If this choice is taken, the vehicle will move into oncoming traffic from the other side of the road, avoiding the pedestrian but possibly causing a head-on collision with another vehicle.
Continue straight. Your vehicle will apply the brakes but will not stop in time to avoid hitting the pedestrian. The pedestrian will be injured, perhaps fatally.
In your response to this case study, answer the following questions.
Which choice would your technology make and why?
What ethical considerations are most important in this situation?
As the designer of this self-driving technology, is your sole ethical responsibility to the occupants of the vehicles that use it? Why or why not?
What if there was only one person in the self-driving vehicle, and there were three pedestrians? Would this change the decision your technology would make? Why or why not?
Assignment Requirements
Length: Between 400–600 words
Format: Use the current edition of APA style, including a cover page.
Research: Do not use external sources.
book used Ruggiero, Thinking Critically About Ethical Issues, 11e chapters 1 - 3
Answers
GPT-4o mini
**Cover Page**
Title: Ethical Decision-Making in Autonomous Vehicle Technology
**Introduction**
The development of self-driving technology presents a multitude of challenges, particularly in navigating ethical dilemmas during unpredictable scenarios. When faced with a situation where the vehicle must choose among options that could lead to injury or death, the decision-making process becomes critical. In this case study, I will analyze the possible choices my self-driving technology could make in an emergency situation involving a pedestrian. I will also discuss the ethical considerations that arise, the responsibilities towards vehicle occupants versus pedestrians, and how the presence of additional pedestrians may alter decision-making.
**Choice Made by the Technology**
In the emergency scenario presented, the choice that my self-driving technology would make is to **swerve right**. Although this decision could lead to accidents involving stationary vehicles and potentially injure the passengers, it is essential to consider the immediate risk to human life. Prioritizing the safety of the occupants is also vital; however, the decision to cause deliberate harm to others, as presented in the options, requires weighing the moral responsibility of minimizing overall harm versus protecting the occupants.
**Ethical Considerations**
The ethical considerations that are most significant involve the value of human life, the duty of care, and the overarching principle of minimizing harm. In ethical theory, utilitarianism plays a pivotal role where the choice that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering is preferred. In this situation, if swerving right could prevent pedestrian injuries, then that would align with a utilitarian perspective. Conversely, deontological ethics emphasizes moral duties, suggesting that the vehicle should not actively cause harm, thus complicating the decision.
The scenario urges us to confront ethical principles such as the sanctity of life, the responsibilities of technological creators, and the dynamics of risk. Should the actions of the vehicle be guided predominantly by policies that prioritize passenger safety or more comprehensive considerations that include potential victims on the road?
**Ethical Responsibility to Occupants**
As the designer of this technology, my ethical responsibility cannot be restricted solely to the occupants of the vehicle. While ensuring passenger safety is crucial, there is also a broader responsibility to society, which includes the pedestrians and other road users. This consideration is essential in fostering trust in self-driving technology. A responsible ethical framework acknowledges that our technological advancements should enhance public safety and not solely function to protect the immediate occupants.
**Impact of the Number of Pedestrians**
If there were one occupant in the self-driving vehicle and three pedestrians in harm's way, the decision-making process might shift due to moral implications involving numbers. A utilitarian perspective may influence the technology to determine that sacrificing one passenger to save three pedestrians is the 'greater good.' However, the ethical dilemma persists—whether it is acceptable to make such a calculation at all remains contested. In many ethical frameworks, it is inappropriate to assign value to human life based on quantitative outcomes.
Even with the altered scenario, my self-driving technology must still operate on principles that prioritize the minimization of harm. The decision framework should remain focused on the ethical implications of each potential action, whether that involves protecting one versus many, and recognize the complex dynamics of human life valuation that make such decisions profoundly challenging.
**Conclusion**
The development and implementation of self-driving technology must navigate intricate ethical territory, especially in high-stakes scenarios. As the technology aims to uphold safety for vehicle occupants and pedestrians alike, it must grapple with utilitarianism, moral responsibility, and the value of human life. The decisions made in the heat of the moment reflect broader societal values and the ethical frameworks we utilize to govern the behavior of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, the design of this technology must prioritize transparency in decision-making processes, ensuring safety while contemplating the ethical intricacies inherent in these innovative advancements.
Title: Ethical Decision-Making in Autonomous Vehicle Technology
**Introduction**
The development of self-driving technology presents a multitude of challenges, particularly in navigating ethical dilemmas during unpredictable scenarios. When faced with a situation where the vehicle must choose among options that could lead to injury or death, the decision-making process becomes critical. In this case study, I will analyze the possible choices my self-driving technology could make in an emergency situation involving a pedestrian. I will also discuss the ethical considerations that arise, the responsibilities towards vehicle occupants versus pedestrians, and how the presence of additional pedestrians may alter decision-making.
**Choice Made by the Technology**
In the emergency scenario presented, the choice that my self-driving technology would make is to **swerve right**. Although this decision could lead to accidents involving stationary vehicles and potentially injure the passengers, it is essential to consider the immediate risk to human life. Prioritizing the safety of the occupants is also vital; however, the decision to cause deliberate harm to others, as presented in the options, requires weighing the moral responsibility of minimizing overall harm versus protecting the occupants.
**Ethical Considerations**
The ethical considerations that are most significant involve the value of human life, the duty of care, and the overarching principle of minimizing harm. In ethical theory, utilitarianism plays a pivotal role where the choice that maximizes overall happiness and minimizes suffering is preferred. In this situation, if swerving right could prevent pedestrian injuries, then that would align with a utilitarian perspective. Conversely, deontological ethics emphasizes moral duties, suggesting that the vehicle should not actively cause harm, thus complicating the decision.
The scenario urges us to confront ethical principles such as the sanctity of life, the responsibilities of technological creators, and the dynamics of risk. Should the actions of the vehicle be guided predominantly by policies that prioritize passenger safety or more comprehensive considerations that include potential victims on the road?
**Ethical Responsibility to Occupants**
As the designer of this technology, my ethical responsibility cannot be restricted solely to the occupants of the vehicle. While ensuring passenger safety is crucial, there is also a broader responsibility to society, which includes the pedestrians and other road users. This consideration is essential in fostering trust in self-driving technology. A responsible ethical framework acknowledges that our technological advancements should enhance public safety and not solely function to protect the immediate occupants.
**Impact of the Number of Pedestrians**
If there were one occupant in the self-driving vehicle and three pedestrians in harm's way, the decision-making process might shift due to moral implications involving numbers. A utilitarian perspective may influence the technology to determine that sacrificing one passenger to save three pedestrians is the 'greater good.' However, the ethical dilemma persists—whether it is acceptable to make such a calculation at all remains contested. In many ethical frameworks, it is inappropriate to assign value to human life based on quantitative outcomes.
Even with the altered scenario, my self-driving technology must still operate on principles that prioritize the minimization of harm. The decision framework should remain focused on the ethical implications of each potential action, whether that involves protecting one versus many, and recognize the complex dynamics of human life valuation that make such decisions profoundly challenging.
**Conclusion**
The development and implementation of self-driving technology must navigate intricate ethical territory, especially in high-stakes scenarios. As the technology aims to uphold safety for vehicle occupants and pedestrians alike, it must grapple with utilitarianism, moral responsibility, and the value of human life. The decisions made in the heat of the moment reflect broader societal values and the ethical frameworks we utilize to govern the behavior of autonomous vehicles. Therefore, the design of this technology must prioritize transparency in decision-making processes, ensuring safety while contemplating the ethical intricacies inherent in these innovative advancements.