Never Mind the Trolley: The Ethics of Autonomous Vehicles in Mundane Situations

Article

Abstract

Trolley cases are widely considered central to the ethics of autonomous vehicles. We caution against this by identifying four problems. (1) Trolley cases, given technical limitations, rest on assumptions that are in tension with one another. Furthermore, (2) trolley cases illuminate only a limited range of ethical issues insofar as they cohere with a certain design framework. Furthermore, (3) trolley cases seem to demand a moral answer when a political answer is called for. Finally, (4) trolley cases might be epistemically problematic in several ways. To put forward a positive proposal, we illustrate how ethical challenges arise from mundane driving situations. We argue that mundane situations are relevant because of the specificity they require and the scale they exhibit. We then illustrate some of the ethical challenges arising from optimizing for safety, balancing safety with other values such as mobility, and adjusting to incentives of legal frameworks.

Keywords

Applied ethics Ethics of autonomous vehicles Ethics of technology Driverless cars Ethics of self-driving cars Methodology Thought experiments Autonomous vehicles Self-driving cars Trolley problem 

Notes

Acknowledgements

For their helpful comments and discussions, I am grateful to Chris Gerdes, Geoff Keeling, Patrick Lin, Jason Millar, Jesse Saloom, and two anonymous referees of this journal.

References

  1. Achenbach, J (2015) Driverless cars are colliding with the creepy trolley problem. Washington Post December 29, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/12/29/will-self-driving-cars-ever-solve-the-famous-and-creepy-trolley-problem/. Accessed 31 October 2017
  2. Bjorndahl A, London AJ, Zollman KJS (2017) Kantian decision making under uncertainty: dignity, price, and consistency. Phil Impr 17Google Scholar
  3. Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352:1573–1576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borenstein J, Herkert JR, Miller KW (2017) Self-driving cars and engineering ethics: the need for a system level analysis. Sci Eng Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-0006-0
  5. Casey BJ (2017) Amoral machines, or: how roboticists can learn to stop worrying and love the law. Northwest U Law Rev 11:231–250Google Scholar
  6. Coughenour C, Clark S, Singh A, Claw E, Abelar J, Huebner J (2017) Examining racial Bias as a potential factor in pedestrian crashes. Accid Anal Prev 98:96–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.09.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crane D, Logue K, Pilz B (2017) A survey of legal issues arising from the deployment of autonomous and connected vehicles. Mich Telecommun Technol. Law Rev 23:191–320Google Scholar
  8. Elster J (2011) How outlandish can imaginary cases be? J Appl Philos 28:241–258.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2011.00531.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etzioni A, Etzioni O (2017) Incorporating ethics into artificial intelligence. J Ethics 21:403–418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-017-9252-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fleetwood J (2017) Public health, ethics, and autonomous vehicles. Am J Public Health 107:532–537.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Rev 5:5–15Google Scholar
  12. Fraichard T, Asama H (2004) Inevitable collision states – a step towards safer robots? Adv Robot 18:1001–1024.  https://doi.org/10.1163/1568553042674662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fried BH (2012) What does matter? The case for killing the trolley problem (or letting it die). Philos Q 62:505–529.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2012.00061.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frison AK, Wintersberger P, Riener A (2016) First Person Trolley Problem: Evaluation of Drivers’ Ethical Decisions in a Driving Simulator. Adjun Proc 8th Intern Conf Automoti User Interfaces Interact Vehicular Appl, 117–122. doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3004323.3004336
  15. Goddard T, Kahn KB, Adkins A (2015) Racial Bias in driver yielding behavior at crosswalks. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav 33:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.06.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gogoll J, Müller JF (2017) Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Sci Eng Ethics 23:681–700.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9806-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Goodall NJ (2016) Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Appl Artif Intell 30(8):810–821.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2016.1229922 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Greene JD, Sommerville RB, Nystrom LE, Darley JM, Cohen JD (2001) An FMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293:2105–2108.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greene JD, Cushman FA, Stewart LE, Lowenberg K, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2009) Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition 111:364–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansson SO (2013) The ethics of risk: ethical analysis in an uncertain world. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jackson F, Smith M (2006) Absolutist moral theories and uncertainty. J Philos 103:267–283.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20619943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackson F, Smith M (2016) The implementation problem for deontology. In: Lord E, Maguire B (eds) Weighing reasons. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 279–292.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199315192.003.0014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kagan S (2015) Solving the trolley problem. In: Rakowski E (ed) The trolley problem mysteries. Oxford University Press, Oxford.  https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190247157.001.0001. Google Scholar
  24. Kamm FM (2008) Intricate ethics: rights, responsibilities, and permissible harm. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Kamm FM (2016) The trolley problem mysteries. In: Rakowski E (ed) The trolley problem mysteries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Lazar S (2018) In dubious battle: uncertainty and the ethics of killing. Philos Stud 175:859–883.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-017-0896-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lazar S, Lee-Stronach C (2017) Axiological absolutism and risk. Noûs.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12210
  28. Lin P (2014) The robot Car of tomorrow may just be programmed to hit you. WIRED. https://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you/. Accessed 31 October 2017
  29. Luetge C (2017) The German Ethics Code for Automated and Connected Driving. Philos & Technol. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0284-0
  30. Marchant GE, Lindor RA (2012) The coming collision between autonomous vehicles and the liability system symposium article. Santa Clara Law Rev 52:1321–1340Google Scholar
  31. Marcus G (2012) Moral machines. The New Yorker https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/moral-machines. Accessed 26 October 2017
  32. Millar J (2014) An Ethical Dilemma: When Robot Cars Must Kill, Who Should Pick the Victim? Robohub. http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-kill-who-should-pick-the-victim/. Accessed 31 October 2017
  33. Millar J (2017) Ethics Settings for Autonomous Vehicles. In Lin P, Jenkins R, Abney K (eds) Robot Ethics 2.0: From Autonomous Cars to Artificial Intelligence. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 20–34Google Scholar
  34. Millard-Ball A (2016) Pedestrians, autonomous vehicles, and cities. J Plan Educ Res 38:6–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X16675674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mladenovic MN, McPherson T (2016) Engineering social justice into traffic control for self-driving vehicles? Sci Eng Ethics 22:1131–1149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9690-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nyholm S, Smids J (2016) The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: an applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 19:1275–1289.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-016-9745-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Posner EA, Sunstein CR (2005) Dollars and death. Univ of chic. Law Rev 72:537–598Google Scholar
  38. Rakowski E (2016) Introduction. In: Rakowski E (ed) The trolley problem mysteries. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Rawls J (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Rosenbloom T, Nemrodov D, Eliyahu AB (2006) Yielding behavior of Israeli drivers: interaction of age and sex. Percept Mot Skills 103:387–390.  https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.103.2.387-390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. SAE International (2016) Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201609/. Accessed 29 November 2017
  42. Santoni de Sio F (2017) Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessity. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 20:411–429.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-017-9780-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schneider RJ, Sanders RL (2015) Pedestrian safety practitioners’ perspectives of driver yielding behavior across North America. Transp Res Re: J Transp Res Board 2519:39–50.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2519-05 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shariff A, Bonnefon JF, Rahwan I (2016) Whose Life Should Your Car Save? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/opinion/sunday/whose-life-should-your-car-save.html. Accessed 27 October 2017
  45. Tenenbaum S (2017) Action, deontology, and risk: against the multiplicative model. Ethics 127:674–707.  https://doi.org/10.1086/690072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thomson JJ (1976) Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. Monist 59:204–217.  https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Thomson JJ (1985) The trolley problem. Yale Law J 94:1395.  https://doi.org/10.2307/796133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thomson JJ (2008) Turning the trolley. Philos Public Aff 36:359–374.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2008.00144.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallach W, Allen C (2008) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  50. Wood A (2013) Humanity as end in itself. In: Scheffler S (ed) On what matters vol 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 58–82Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.McCoy Family Center for Ethics in SocietyStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations