L5: Autonomous Driving

Kathegorischer Imperativ:

„Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.“ Dies bedeutet, dass eine Handlung nur dann moralisch ist, wenn die Regel, nach der sie ausgeführt wird, ohne Widerspruch als allgemeines Gesetz für alle gelten könnte.

Ethics of Duties

Utilitarismus: maximieren von Nutzen, das was in Summe den größten Nutzen bringt, ist richtig

Is my action producing more pleasure than pain for society in the long run?

Egoism:

Am I acting in my, or my organization’s, best long term interest?

Egoism produces morally desirable outcomes through the “invisible hand” of the market

In this thought experiment, individuals are asked to select principles for the creation of a new society from an "original position" of equality. However, they must make these decisions behind a "Veil of Ignorance," which means they lack any knowledge of their personal characteristics, such as their gender, race, intelligence, abilities, or their place within the social order (wealth, class status, etc.). The idea is that without this personal information, decision-makers will be unable to tailor the principles of society to benefit themselves unfairly. Therefore, the principles chosen from behind the Veil of Ignorance would be inherently fair and impartial, as they would not favor any particular individual or group over another.

• Tight race with competitors

• Trade off between time and safety (?)

• Users’ misuse (placing responsibility)

• Unclear legislation

• FATALITIES ARE THE USERS’ OR THE DEVELOPER’S FAULTS?

the passenger has the task (and burden) of deciding what ethical approach should be adopted in unavoidable accident scenarios

the AV has the task to implement the users ethical choice, based on its risk assessment

The crucial point we make is that, in any case, the citizen needs to make up her mind about these new ethical conundrums. Neither the government nor the automobile manufacturers have the moral authority to decide these questions, even if they had the opportunity to do so.

It suggests that when it comes to complex moral questions, like those arising from the use of autonomous vehicles, it isn't just up to governments or car manufacturers to decide what should be done. Instead, the text emphasizes that individual citizens must also think about and decide on these ethical issues for themselves, since they are the ones who will be affected by these decisions and because these are matters that touch on personal moral values and societal norms, not just regulatory or business decisions.

• If everybody tries to minimize the expected harm to him or herself, the expected likelihood of everyone becoming harmed actually rises. Therefore, by this logic, a world in which nobody is ready to sacrifice themselves for the greater number, the number of actual traffic casualties is necessarily higher

• If there is a world in which everybody is moral and, thus, is ready to sacrifice themselves for a greater number of people, fewer people in total will be killed..

  Therefore, a mandatory rule by the Government is necessary

1. Ethical Dilemmas have different solving depending on the ethical underlying approach preferred/adopted

2. Tech ethics deals with (major) two spheres: 1. human/technology responsibility 2. embedding of moral choices (es. At which stage of the pipeline the moral choice is made, who has control over it etc.)

3. The Trolley Problem is a classic representation of the deontological (non-consequentialist) vs. Utilitarian (consequentialist) approach

Normative ethical theories propose to prescribe the correct way of acting by codifying rules and principles that determine morally acceptable courses of action.

Am I acting in my or my organization’s best long-term interest?

Utilitarianism states that an action is morally right if it results in the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people affected by the action.

An action is morally right if it is consistent with the categorical imperative, which requires consistency, human dignity, and universality in actions.

The ethics of rights emphasizes respecting and protecting fundamental human rights, such as the right to life, freedom, and property.

1. Each person has an equal right to the most extensive system of basic liberties compatible with a similar system for all.

2. Social and economic inequalities are arranged to benefit the least advantaged and are attached to positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.

1. Equal Basic Liberties: Everyone should have the same basic rights and freedoms to the greatest extent possible without infringing on others' rights. This means that no one's personal freedom should be sacrificed for someone else's benefit.

2. Difference Principle and Fair Equality of Opportunity:

   • The "Difference Principle" means that any social or economic inequalities in society should work out to benefit those who are least well-off.

   • "Fair Equality of Opportunity" means that everyone should have the same chance to attain the various offices and positions in society if they have the ability.

So, Rawls argues that a just society protects equal basic rights for everyone while also arranging social and economic inequalities so that they end up helping the least advantaged people and everyone has a fair shot at success. These principles are meant to guide the structure of a society and how it should operate.

Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the decision-maker, emphasizing that morally acceptable actions are those undertaken by individuals with virtuous characteristics.

The Trolley Problem illustrates the ethical dilemma of choosing between two undesirable outcomes, akin to programming autonomous vehicles to make ethical decisions in unavoidable accident scenarios.

The debate centers on whether there should be a universal ethical setting applied to all AVs or if drivers (or users) should be able to select their personal ethical settings for unavoidable accident scenarios.