Moral Dilemma Raised by Driverless Cars

Moral Dilemma Raised by Driverless Cars

Introduction

A driverless car is one which uses technology such as laser light, GPS, sensor lights, computer vision, and odometry to sense its environment and navigate without necessarily the input of a human being (Greene, 2016). These advanced techniques aid them in interpreting sensory information and identifying paths and routes to follow as well as seeing any obstacles to avoid or road signs that are relevant. This paper is aimed at discussing the ethical dilemma raised by use of driverless cars and appropriate ethical actions they take when faced by emergency situations.

Driverless cars have both potential benefits and several unresolved concerns. They are potentially beneficial in that they give relief to drivers and passengers from driving and navigating activities, they have relatively low fuel consumption, increase the flow of traffic on roads as well as parking spaces among numerous other benefits (Pollock, 2012). The unresolved problems range from, safety concerns, regulations by the government, as well as moral concerns.

Among the concerns and disputes that arise from the use of driverless cars are; moral concerns. According to Greene (2016), the questions that arise include inter alia; whether these vehicles are programmed to perform ethical acts and how do they do this? Should the computer programmers of the car be trusted to give the car ability to execute the most ethical solution when met by an emergency? If these cars take a certain maneuver that ends up causing damage, who should be held liable?

An emergency situation or a moral quandary can arise when the car confronts a situation where it will collide into a motorcycle or it can swerve and collide into a wall. Given the safety features of the vehicle, it is likely that the passenger of the car will be less injured than the driver of the motorcycle. Is it ethical to swerve the car into the wall?

Ethical formalism

Ethical formalism means that, something which is good is that which is in  consistent with the philosophical concept of morality (Pollock, 2012). It is believed that there is a law that clearly states the distinction between right and wrong. Ethical formalism is categorized into deontological and teleological ethical systems. Deontological ethical systems focus mainly on whether the act or omission is right or wrong and not on the consequences of the act or omission, while teleological systems are concerned with whether the consequences are good or bad regardless of the righteousness of the act or omission (Pollock, 2012).

Computer programmers of the driverless cars must ensure that the systems are able to avoid accidents and collisions altogether. However, ethical formalism dictates that if it is impossible to control an accident or a collision, it is required that the safety of human beings be given priority over that of animals and non-living things such as property or at least confront the emergency situation in a way that is least likely to harm human beings (Greene, 2016). In the above chosen quandary, it will therefore be ethical to swerve the car into the wall instead of colliding into the motorcycle. This way the driver of the car is likely to suffer less injury while the driver of the motorcycle might avoid injury or suffer less injury.

Hedonism

            Ethical hedonism describes the thought that a person has the right to do that which will bring to them the maximum levels of pleasure and happiness. It dictates that the amount of pleasure a person derives from their happiness should be more than the pain brought. Everything done by human should be done with the aim of giving pleasure. Pleasure is thought to be the very first good in humans and from pleasure, subsequently comes other choices (Greene, 2016).

In the above chosen quandary, while deciding what to swerve into between the wall and the motorcycle, the principle of hedonism steps in and directs that the most ethical thing to do is to do whatever will bring the least pain. Swerving into the motorcycle might cause harm to both the motorcycle driver and the car driver. It is therefore ethical to let the car swerve into the wall as the possibility of greater harm is reduced. (Pollock, 2012)

Ethics of Care

Care of ethics is a theory which puts emphasis on the fact that human beings are interdependent on each other and virtues such as care, benevolence and sensitivity towards one another must be applied while relating to one another (Greene, 2016). When it comes to the question of ethics of care when using a driverless car, there are several questions that have not been answered yet (Pollock, 2012). The questions are; What are the risks worth taking? Who is making the choice between the human and the car? Is there any moral principle that can be agreed upon by everyone? Should the driverless cars have their own moral principle? Can we learn to fully trust the driverless cars?

The above questions will be relevant in helping to determine the ethically right action to take when faced by the chosen quandary and similar other conundrums. For instance, what are the risks when the car swerves into the wall rather than into the motorcycle? The risk with the least chance of causing harm to human beings is the one that should be followed, even if it means destroying property and other objects such as trees and animals (Pollock, 2012).

Conclusion

A number of people struggle to see that as many lives as possible are saved in case of an accident while using cars that are driven by humans. The very same people would however prefer to purchase a driverless car that is able to prioritize the safety of the passengers being driven inside it. According to Harvard Psychologist, Greene (2016), the society needs to come to a certain consensus on how exactly  they would like the driverless cars to be like to help manufacturers and programmers to find ways of coming up with models that are almost if not similar to the expectations posed by society. The idea of a person sacrificing themselves in an attempt to save a greater number of people is one of the biggest challenges that arises when it comes to preference of using driverless cars (Greene, 2016).

It is common knowledge in criminal law that there cannot be a crime when there is no law, which is given by the Latin expression; nullen crimen sine lege. Which translates to “No crime without law.” This creates a lacuna which ethics step in to fill. Where we cannot be guided by laws, moral principles come in handy to give guidance in  the use of driverless cars (Pollock, 2012).

Works Cited

Greene, J.  “Our Driverless Dilemma: When Should Your Car be Willing to Kill You?” 2016

Pollock, J. “Ethical Dilemmas and Decisions in Criminal Justice.” 2012