As we move into the future, the automotive industry is slowly inching towards fully-autonomous vehicles. It’s important to define fully-autonomous as a vehicle that is capable of driving itself without needing any type of driver assistance, such that the everyone in the vehicle is a passenger. Even though production of self-driving cars has not begun, the discussion of ethical issues surrounding vehicle artificial intelligence has. The range of issues include crash optimization, algorithm transparency for end users, loss of jobs and overall vehicle security.
There is a important distinction between crash avoidance and crash optimization, the former is engaged before the latter. If the vehicle has determined that the crash is unavoidable, then
…show more content…
The utilitarian perspective would say that the vehicle should choose the outcome that results in the least amount of death, in other words, “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness” (Mill). Mill’s utilitarian perspective extends on this by also including the quality of the happiness because “some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others” (Mill). For example, saving a life is more valuable than saving an empty vehicle. On the other hand, social contractarianism would say that the crash optimization algorithm should be chosen where fairness is prioritized over safety. Rawls’ believes that under a social contract everyone should be treated equal, therefore everyone must be afforded the same rights. In creating a crash optimization system, Rawls would most likely say that at a minimum it should follow both the liberty and difference principles. The liberty principle says “each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with a similar scheme for all” (Rawls). And the difference principle says that “social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: first, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantages members of society.” (Rawls). By this argument, crash optimization is not applicable because it wouldn’t be able to afford everyone the same scheme in every