Facing a moral dilemma over driverless cars
by Michael Cook | 25 Jun 2016 | 1 comment
Driverless cars pose a quandary when it comes to safety. These autonomous vehicles are programmed with a set of safety rules, and it is not hard to construct a scenario in which those rules come into conflict with each other. Suppose a driverless car must either hit a pedestrian or swerve in such a way that it crashes and harms its passengers. What should it be programmed to do?
An article in Science this week shows that the give contradictory responses to scenarios like these. Researchers found that people generally take a utilitarian approach to safety ethics: They would prefer autonomous vehicles to minimize casualties in situations of extreme danger. That would mean, say, having a car with one rider swerve off the road and crash to avoid a crowd of 10 pedestrians. At the same time, they would be much less likely to use a vehicle programmed that way.
Essentially, people want driverless cars that are as pedestrian-friendly as possible -- except for the vehicles they would be riding in. "Most people want to live in in a world where cars will minimize casualties," says Iyad Rahwan, an associate professor in the MIT Media Lab. "But everybody want their own car to protect them at all costs."
People were strongly opposed to the idea of the government regulating driverless cars to ensure they would be programmed with utilitarian principles. They were only one-third as likely to purchase a vehicle regulated this way, as opposed to an unregulated vehicle, which could presumably be programmed in any fashion.
"This is a challenge that should be on the mind of carmakers and regulators alike," the researchers said. Moreover, if autonomous vehicles actually turned out to be safer than regular cars, unease over the dilemmas of regulation "may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology."
The result is what the researchers call a "social dilemma," in which people could end up making conditions less safe for everyone by acting in their own self-interest: "For the time being, there seems to be no easy way to design algorithms that would reconcile moral values and personal self-interest."
- See more at: http://www.bioedge.org/bioethics/facing-a-moral-dilemma-over-driverless-cars/11933#sthash.qQZtJm9O.dpufAn article in Science this week shows that the give contradictory responses to scenarios like these. Researchers found that people generally take a utilitarian approach to safety ethics: They would prefer autonomous vehicles to minimize casualties in situations of extreme danger. That would mean, say, having a car with one rider swerve off the road and crash to avoid a crowd of 10 pedestrians. At the same time, they would be much less likely to use a vehicle programmed that way.
Essentially, people want driverless cars that are as pedestrian-friendly as possible -- except for the vehicles they would be riding in. "Most people want to live in in a world where cars will minimize casualties," says Iyad Rahwan, an associate professor in the MIT Media Lab. "But everybody want their own car to protect them at all costs."
People were strongly opposed to the idea of the government regulating driverless cars to ensure they would be programmed with utilitarian principles. They were only one-third as likely to purchase a vehicle regulated this way, as opposed to an unregulated vehicle, which could presumably be programmed in any fashion.
"This is a challenge that should be on the mind of carmakers and regulators alike," the researchers said. Moreover, if autonomous vehicles actually turned out to be safer than regular cars, unease over the dilemmas of regulation "may paradoxically increase casualties by postponing the adoption of a safer technology."
The result is what the researchers call a "social dilemma," in which people could end up making conditions less safe for everyone by acting in their own self-interest: "For the time being, there seems to be no easy way to design algorithms that would reconcile moral values and personal self-interest."
“What does Brexit mean for bioethics?” is our lead story today. Given that the Leavers were not expected to win and that the pundits have widely different views of the future of the politics and economies of the UK and the EU, it is unwise to be dogmatic on the issue.
However, the question highlights the importance of Britain in the world of bioethics. Britain is the home of utilitarianism, which is the dominant philosophy in bioethical discourse at the moment. The medical and scientific establishment is dominated by a utilitarian mindset which has set the agenda for debates on embryo research, stem cell research and assisted dying around the world. As one cynical writer commented, “when it comes to bioethics, Europe might be better off without Britain”.
There is something in this. Although I am handicapped by a big language barrier, my impression is that from Norway to Italy there is much more depth and diversity in bioethical discourse across the Channel. The Greens and the Christian Churches are much more influential, to say nothing of Continental philosophy, which despises utilitarianism as vacuous and naïve. If England (the pundits all agree that Scotland will secede) loses its biomedical industry to the EU, perhaps utilitarian bioethics will lose some of its funding and its influence. That would be no bad thing, I think.
******
Sorry, guys, but BioEdge will be taking a holiday during July. Our next issue will be in the first week of August.
Michael Cook
Editor
BioEdge
| This week in BioEdge | |
by Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
Brexit may lead to significant changes in biomedical policy in the UKby Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Oxford don tries living as a badger to expand his horizonsby Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Fails to surface in the mediaby Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
Australia’s asylum seeker policies have been subject to intense international scrutiny – even in the world of bioethics.by Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Getting in touch with your inner earth mother goddessby Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
A new UK Parliamentary Inquiry into conscientious objection was launched this month.by Xavier Symons | Jun 25, 2016
The American tabloid media was abuzz this week with news that a New York Mathematics Professor had fathered 22 children through informal sperm donation.by Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
A practical application of utilitarian theory spurned by the publicby Michael Cook | Jun 25, 2016
Confusing signals from China over stem cells and organ transplantsby Wesley J. Smith | Jun 21, 2016
A leading voice in American bioethics peers into the future in his new bookBioEdge
Suite 12A, Level 2 | 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | Australia
Phone: +61 2 8005 8605
Mobile: 0422-691-615
Email: michael@bioedge.org
New Media Foundation | Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605
.png)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario