1) Have you defined the problem accurately? – The article “With Driverless Cars, a Safety Dilemma Arises” by Amy Dockser Marcus primarily focuses on this question. The article discusses research around the question – would you buy a driverless car that protects you first or pedestrians? Amy Dockser Marcus does an excellent job of using facts and not loyalties to define the dilemma. She starts by quoting a survey that found 76% of 182 respondents stated it would be better for a driverless car to be programmed to sacrifice the driver at the benefit of saving 10 pedestrians. This is very helpful information in the development of driverless cars, it gives them an idea of what people morally expect. However, the article goes on to show that …show more content…
Does it matter if the car takes the driver’s safety first or the pedestrians’ safety first if we can’t take other items into consideration? Just because a technology is reachable and meets needs we want satisfied doesn’t mean it’s ready. That is the overriding component for me. I do not want to buy a driverless car if that means everyone will begin buying driverless cars that create an environment in which we can’t guarantee a child would be a priority in any potential car accident? While we can’t guarantee it without driverless cars we can at least currently hope. We can hope that regardless how selfish someone is, who they are more loyal to, how much time could change them, have they thought about what other people on the other side perceive their decision, if they are defining the problem accurately, is their intent good or reachable, or how did they get there in the first place, that they will recognize children need adults to look out for them. We can at least hope for that if we do not buy any driverless cars. However, if we do continue down a path of buying cars with this technology before other considerations can be added to the equation than we