Is it morally justifiable for governments to allow self-driving cars to be pre-programmed in such a way that the driver's life be saved at the risk of harming other users of the road?
Technologies have advanced dramatically over the past decades because of the introduction of artificial intelligence. Recently, many automotive companies try to improve their vehicles by making their cars autonomous. As shown from a report by the consulting firm Mckinsey & Co., self-driving cars are very appealing as they can potentially reduce road accidents by up to 90 percent [1]. Even though this advancement is widely accepted, they are not yet implemented because of many related ethical issues. Heated debates revolve around what the program should do when it encounters accidents. This essay will argue that self-driving cars should protect passengers even if it may put other users of the road at risk because this solution maximizes the benefits of the owner of the car and has the highest chance to minimize human deaths. This will be demonstrated by similar examples of currently existing products and the cost-benefit analysis approach of utilitarianism.
Currently, many products that provide buyers with benefits are widely accepted regardless of the minor harm they may cause, so it is morally justifiable for self-driving cars to ensure the safety of the owners even at the risk of hurting other people. For instance, even cars have negative impacts on us even though we may not realize it. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, air pollution in the United States is created mainly by transportation [2]. Vehicles produce toxic gases such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides that bring huge risks to the health of the public and the environment. Nevertheless, cars allow users to save time from travelling from one place to another conveniently. This benefit is much greater than the individual, minimal damage to the surroundings. Similarly, pre-programming the self-driving cars benefit users by maximizing their overall safety under all circumstances, even though there is a small chance of causing danger to other users of the road during accidents. The significant increase in passengers’ safety by 90 percent outweighs the negligible risk to cause additional danger. Mo Zi once commented, “Now things like… the exchange of mutual benefit are both beneficial and easy to practice in innumerable ways [8].” The reason for the practice of “exchanging of mutual benefit” works efficiently is because self-interest is the foundation of one’s motivation and goal. As a result, it is only reasonable to provide benefits exclusively for those who spend their money on self-driving cars. In addition, this encourages more users of self-driving cars, making the world a safer place because of the advantages of these vehicles. Since transportations are considered to be morally acceptable even if they create harmful pollutants, pre-programmed self-driving cars are of the same nature and should be allowed to protect passengers even with these potential risks.
Adopting a program to protect passengers’ lives will lead to the most optimal results most of the time, thus it is imperative that self-driving cars install such a system. When facing moral dilemmas of choosing between two undesirable outcomes, it is only reasonable to choose the lesser of two evils. Utilitarianism is a suitable moral basis in this situation, as it judges actions’ morality based on their consequences [5]. This moral theory is based on the Principle of Utility, which requires us to “always choose whatever action or social policy would have the best consequence for everyone concerned [6].” In order to do this, we should conduct a cost-benefit analysis for the self-driving cars with and without the program during accidents. If the car were to not take any actions that would protect itself, it would be clear that the passengers’ lives would be at stake due to the inaction. Moreover, other users of the road may still have a chance of being affected as a result because of other unforeseen factors. On the other hand, the car could greatly increase the survivability of the passengers with the program implemented, even though there would be a risk of harming other users of the road. From these results, we can see that both scenarios may cost lives of other people outside of the vehicle, but the pre-programmed car has a much higher chance of saving the innocent people within it. Therefore, self-driving cars should invest in this system so that casualties may be minimized.
Even with these benefits, many are still against this additional security for passengers at the risk of others’ safety because they believe that it is unfair for those who could afford self-driving cars to have better protection in accidents. Supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they believe that all users of the road should be treated equally and should not be entitled with any unfair advantages [7]. Nevertheless, they fail to realize that the right to purchase and choose the vehicle to transport with is still equal among everyone. Furthermore, it is ethical for self-driving car owners to maximize their own benefits because they have paid for the product. Throughout the ages, the trading system has always been successful because both parties are satisfied. Therefore, it is moral to reward the buyers by minimizing their danger when using self-driving cars.
To conclude, self-driving cars that best protect the passengers maximize the overall benefits of the society. Even though there is a slim chance of hurting bystanders, it is ethical because many current existing products have similar negative effects. Viewing from a utilitarian approach, the results from the cost-benefit analysis demonstrates how this system produces the optimal results most of the time. This added safety for self-driving car owners does not violate the equality of human rights because of one’s freedom of choice. Furthermore, it enables the efficient trading system by introducing more buyers because of such rewards. All in all, prioritizing passengers’ safety will increase the assets of self-driving cars significantly, leading to a more desirable future in the coming age.
References
[1] M. Ramsey, "Self-Driving Cars Could Cut Down on Accidents, Study Says", WSJ, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.wsj.com/articles/self-driving-cars-could-cut-down-on-accidents-study-says-1425567905.
[3] Who.int, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.who.int/tobacco/publications/gender/en_tfi_gender_women_addiction_nicotine.pdf.
[4] "Health Risks of Secondhand Smoke", Cancer.org, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html.
[5] S. Nathanson, "Utilitarianism, Act and Rule | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy", Iep.utm.edu, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/.
[6] C. Brebbia, Disaster management and human health risk V. .
[7] "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", Un.org, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.
[8] K. Huang, From Destiny to Dao: A Survey of Pre-Qin Philosophy in China.
Comments