Essay On Self-Driving Car Swerve

If I was the programmer, I would instruct the vehicle to continue on its intended path, regardless of the situation. If, after making a turn, I noticed a group of people in the road, I would hope that the car would make an effort to stop. However, I would not allow the self-driving car to swerve into a wall or a sole pedestrian. By changing the path from which the car originally intended to go, you make the car become a leader in this situation, not just a bystander. In order to make the car swerve, it would need an external factor to deviate from the original design. This decision carries responsibility as well. There is a difference between the vehicle choosing to swerve into a wall and choosing to hit the group of people. In fact, the vehicle would not be choosing to hit the group of people at all, the group was in the vehicle’s way.

If the autonomous vehicle possessed the predisposition to drive straight after completing a turn, the vehicle should not have outside influences affect its decision. By doing so,

it becomes the catalyst of the ethical issue. The passengers in the vehicle did not enter the vehicle with the intention to be killed, and neither did the person on the side of the road. If the self-driving car were to make the decision to swerve without attempting to brake safely, the car would be imposing its own ethical standards onto others. The vehicle should remain neutral in the situation by not acting. If the car agrees to swerve, it would force itself into the equation. The vehicle would then be the catalyst of an ethical and spiritual dilemma by deciding who is allowed to live and who dies.
This rationale is consistent with the Devine Command Theory of Ethics.

“Playing God” by deciding who should live and who should die is not spiritual and is thus unethical by religious standards. The autonomous vehicle should not interfere with fate, or it will run the risk of playing God. This supports the purposed solution of allowing the self-driving car to continue on its path. Additional, religious followers would not support a car programmed to kill. While shopping for an autonomous vehicle, proponents of the Divine Command Theory of Ethics would rather support vehicles that made the attempt to save lives. The opportunity to safely apply the brakes with enough time to avoid all casualties resides. So long as this remains a possibility, ethics based on religion would not support a vehicle programmed to swerve. Similarly, I would not want to take such a risk and would program the autonomous vehicle to remain on its predetermined

course.
The proposed solution is also consistent with the principles of Kantian Ethics. People should not be used as means to achieve a desired end. If the self-driving car were to swerve into the wall, or into a single pedestrian, it would be making a conscience decision knowing the risk of ending someone’s life. If the decision is made by the vehicle, it would be understood that the passengers, or the sole pedestrian, would be used as means to achieve the end result of saving the lives of the members of the group. Kant would claim that the swerving vehicle, in this case, was making an unethical judgement, and I would agree. I do not find it justifiable to value the survival of the group over the survival of the passengers and pedestrian. It is impossible to assess the value associated with the lives of two different people, and a single life should not be valued higher than a comparable one. Therefore, my rationale provided is supported by nonconsequentialist theories.
Proponents of utilitarianism would argue that the loss of multiple lives is in vein when there exist an opportunity to save them. However, they fail to take into consideration certain possibilities. If the car swerves into a wall, or the pedestrian, there is complete certainty of causing injury or death. However, if the vehicle continues towards the group of people, there is a greater chance of the group of pedestrians moving out of the way in time before the vehicle collides with them. Given a person’s reaction time and the amount of time gained by applying the car’s brakes, there is a possibility that the people can escape harm’s way or that the car stops before striking them. This is not something utilitarianism accounts for when performing a cost-benefit analysis. Therefore, a utilitarianism approach to this situation would undoubtedly result in some degree of injury, even if the injury is avoidable.
Another issue raised by autonomous vehicles trained to swerve, especially into the wall, is the lack of regard to the safety of the passengers. Since the invention of the automobile, consumers have voiced their safety concerns to manufactures. Yearly, improvements have been made to give hesitant customers some peace of mind. However, how would the market react if they knew the truth about the programs in their autonomous vehicles? Would the market support a vehicle that calculates the greatest good for the greatest number of people before considering the safety of its passengers? Safety and customer reviews are valued greatly when potential buyers are shopping for a new car. Conversely, as a manufacturer and distributer, being able to read the market is an important factor in succeeding. A utilitarian vehicle could discourage potential buyers who believe that their own safety should supersede other considerations. Whereas, in my purposed solution, the safety of the passengers receives more attention. This would lead to more market interest in the purposed autonomous vehicle compared to a utilitarian model.
Overall, the purposed solution to the ethical issue raised by autonomous vehicles would attract more interest from buyers. If self-driving cars reach the same level of success as the original Model-T, it could lead to a safer environment on the road. Every year, thousands of automobile accidents can be attributed to distracted driving habits. Autonomous vehicles have the potential to save lives, and the more vehicles on the road, the faster the technology will progress. Seeing that models already exist with features such as automated parallel parking and warning systems for lanes shift, I believe that self-driving cars will be available on the market within the next decade. The autonomous vehicles of the future should account for passenger safety, coupled with safe driving techniques, when programming how to respond to real-world driving situations.