Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content
Log in

The Ethical Knob: ethically-customisable automated vehicles and the law

  • Published:
Artificial Intelligence and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accidents involving autonomous vehicles (AVs) raise difficult ethical dilemmas and legal issues. It has been argued that self-driving cars should be programmed to kill, that is, they should be equipped with pre-programmed approaches to the choice of what lives to sacrifice when losses are inevitable. Here we shall explore a different approach, namely, giving the user/passenger the task (and burden) of deciding what ethical approach should be taken by AVs in unavoidable accident scenarios. We thus assume that AVs are equipped with what we call an “Ethical Knob”, a device enabling passengers to ethically customise their AVs, namely, to choose between different settings corresponding to different moral approaches or principles. Accordingly, AVs would be entrusted with implementing users’ ethical choices, while manufacturers/programmers would be tasked with enabling the user’s choice and ensuring implementation by the AV.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. $$\begin{aligned} TDis(c_1,a_1)&= 0.36 * 1 =0.36TDis(c_2,a_2)= 0.3 * 1 =0.3 \\ NTDis(c_1,a_1) &= \frac{0.36}{0.36 + 0.3} = 0.55\\ NTDis(c_2,a_2)&= \frac{0.3}{0.36 + 0.3} = 0.45.\end{aligned}$$
  2. For simplicity we do not consider cases when more than one choice have the same disutility for their most disadvantaged agent, such cases have to be addressed according to the principles of lexicographic order, i.e, by considering the second most disadvantaged agent, and so on.

References

  • Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2015) Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics: are we ready for utilitarian cars? arXiv preprint arXiv:151003346

  • Bonnefon JF, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352(6293):1573–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review 5(1):5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Gogoll J, Müller JF (2016) Autonomous cars: In favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Science and Engineering Ethics. doi:10.1007/s11948-016-9806-x

  • Goodall NJ (2016) Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Appl Artif Intell 30(8):810–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leben D (2017) A Rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles. Ethics Inf Technol 19(2):107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin P (2014) Here’s a terrible idea: robot cars with adjustable ethics settings. Wired com Available via http://www.wired.com/2014/08/heres-a-terrible-idea-robot-cars-with-adjustable-ethics-settings

  • Lin P (2016) Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In: Maurer M, Gerdes JC, Lenz B, Winner H (eds) Autonomous driving. Springer, pp 69–85

  • Millar J (2015) Technology as moral proxy: autonomy and paternalism by design. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 34(2):47–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyholm S, Smids J (2016) The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: an applied trolley problem? Ethical theory and moral practice pp 1–15, doi:10.1007/s10677-016-9745-2

  • Rawls J (1999) A Theory of Justice, revised edn. Oxford University Press

  • Santoni de Sio F (2017) Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessity. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 20(2):411–429. doi:10.1007/s10677-017-9780-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomson JJ (1976) Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist 59(2):204–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their many valuable comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Contissa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Contissa, G., Lagioia, F. & Sartor, G. The Ethical Knob: ethically-customisable automated vehicles and the law. Artif Intell Law 25, 365–378 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9211-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9211-z

Keywords

Navigation