Ethics of Self-driving Cars: A Naturalistic Approach

Abstract

The potential development of self-driving cars (also known as autonomous vehicles or AVs – particularly Level 5 AVs) has called the attention of different interested parties. Yet, there are still only a few relevant international regulations on them, no emergency patterns accepted by communities and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), and no publicly accepted solutions to some of their pending ethical problems. Thus, this paper aims to provide some possible answers to these moral and practical dilemmas. In particular, we focus on what AVs should do in no-win scenarios and on who should be held responsible for these types of decisions. A naturalistic perspective on ethics informs our proposal, which, we argue, could represent a pragmatic and realistic solution to the regulation of AVs. We discuss the proposals already set out in the current literature regarding both policy-making strategies and theoretical accounts. In fact, we consider and reject descriptive approaches to the problem as well as the option of using either a strict deontological view or a solely utilitarian one to set AVs’ ethical choices. Instead, to provide concrete answers to AVs’ ethical problems, we examine three hierarchical levels of decision-making processes: country-wide regulations, OEM policies, and buyers’ moral attitudes. By appropriately distributing ethical decisions and considering their practical implications, we maintain that our proposal based on ethical naturalism recognizes the importance of all stakeholders and allows the most able of them to take actions (the OEMs and buyers) to reflect on the moral leeway and weight of their options.

How to program autonomous vehicle (AV) crash algorithms: an Islamic ethical perspective

“…This approach acknowledges the multifaceted impacts of technological change, resulting in a more balanced and comprehensive ethical assessment. Fossa and Tamburrini (2022, p. 81) view moral dilemmas as indicators of the need to strike a balance between conflicting values. Their perspective promotes a balancing act between different ethical considerations, rather than rigidly adhering to deontological or utilitarian principles. Arfini et al (2022) advocate for a mixed approach to AV ethics. They propose a three-tiered pragmatic framework that incorporates country-wide regulations, policies of Original Equipment Manufacturer, and the moral attitudes of buyers.…”

“…Arfini et al (2022) advocate for a mixed approach to AV ethics. They propose a three-tiered pragmatic framework that incorporates country-wide regulations, policies of Original Equipment Manufacturer, and the moral attitudes of buyers.…”

“…Their perspective promotes a balancing act between different ethical considerations, rather than rigidly adhering to deontological or utilitarian principles. Arfini et al (2022) advocate for a mixed approach to AV ethics. They propose a threetiered pragmatic framework that incorporates country-wide regulations, policies of Original Equipment Manufacturer, and the moral attitudes of buyers.…”

Types of Technological Innovation in the Face of Uncertainty

“…This aspect can be a limitation if one wants to employ Clayton Christensen's classification to handle technological innovations. Autonomous driving is a case in point (Arfini et al 2022). Fully autonomous vehicles may be considered "disruptive" from the technological point of view.…”