Author:
Krügel Sebastian,Uhl Matthias
Abstract
AbstractHow would people distribute risks of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in everyday road traffic? The rich literature on the ethics of autonomous vehicles (AVs) revolves around moral judgments in unavoidable collision scenarios. We argue for extending the debate to driving behaviors in everyday road traffic where ubiquitous ethical questions arise due to the permanent redistribution of risk among road users. This distribution of risks raises ethically relevant questions that cannot be evaded by simple heuristics such as “hitting the brakes.” Using an interactive, graphical representation of different traffic situations, we measured participants’ preferences on driving maneuvers of AVs in a representative survey in Germany. Our participants’ preferences deviated significantly from mere collision avoidance. Interestingly, our participants were willing to take risks themselves for the benefit of other road users, suggesting that the social dilemma of AVs may be mitigated in risky environments. Our research might build a bridge between engineers and philosophers to discuss the ethics of AVs more constructively.
Funder
Bavarian Research Institute for Digital Transformation (bidt), Germany
Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference30 articles.
1. Foot, P. The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxf. Rev. 5, 5–15 (1967).
2. Goodall, N. J. Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Appl. Artif. Intell. 30(8), 810–821 (2016).
3. Nyholm, S. & Smids, J. The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem?. Ethical Theory Moral Pract. 19(5), 1275–1289 (2016).
4. Trussell, H. (2018) Why a special issue on machine ethics. Proc. IEEE 106(10), 1774–1776.
5. Keeling, G., Evans, K., Thornton, S. M., Mecacci, G. & Santoni de Sio, F. Four perspectives on what matters for the ethics of automated vehicles. In Automated Vehicles Symposium 49–60 (Springer, 2018).