Technology as moral proxy: Autonomy and paternalism by design

Millar, Jason

doi:10.1109/ethics.2014.6893388

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Jason Millar argues that a person's car should function as a “proxy” for their ethical outlook. People should therefore be able to choose their own ethics settings (Millar, ; see also Sandberg & Bradshaw‐Martin, ). Similarly, Giuseppe Contissa and colleagues argue that self‐driving cars should be equipped with an “ethical knob,” so that whoever is currently using the car can set it to their preferred settings.…”

Section: Part I: What To Do About Unavoidable Crashes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

Nyholm

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self‐driving cars hold out the promise of being much safer than regular cars. Yet they cannot be 100% safe. Accordingly, they need to be programmed for how to deal with crash scenarios. Should cars be programmed to always prioritize their owners, to minimize harm, or to respond to crashes on the basis of some other type of principle? The article first discusses whether everyone should have the same “ethics settings.” Next, the oft‐made analogy with the trolley problem is examined. Then follows an assessment of recent empirical work on lay‐people's attitudes about crash algorithms relevant to the ethical issue of crash optimization. Finally, the article discusses what traditional ethical theories such as utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, and contractualism imply about how cars should handle crash scenarios. The aim of the article is to provide an overview of the existing literature on these topics and to assess how far the discussion has gotten so far.

show abstract

Section: Part I: What To Do About Unavoidable Crashes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

Nyholm

2018

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Foot 1967;Thomson 1985;Kamm 2015) And in recent years, they have also been used to empirically investigate the psychology and neuroscience of different types of moral judgments. (Greene 2013;Mikhail 2013).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley Problem?

Nyholm

Smids

2016

Ethic Theory Moral Prac

229

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-driving cars hold out the promise of being safer than manually driven cars. Yet they cannot be a 100 % safe. Collisions are sometimes unavoidable. So self-driving cars need to be programmed for how they should respond to scenarios where collisions are highly likely or unavoidable. The accident-scenarios self-driving cars might face have recently been likened to the key examples and dilemmas associated with the trolley problem. In this article, we critically examine this tempting analogy. We identify three important ways in which the ethics of accidentalgorithms for self-driving cars and the philosophy of the trolley problem differ from each other. These concern: (i) the basic decision-making situation faced by those who decide how selfdriving cars should be programmed to deal with accidents; (ii) moral and legal responsibility; and (iii) decision-making in the face of risks and uncertainty. In discussing these three areas of disanalogy, we isolate and identify a number of basic issues and complexities that arise within the ethics of the programming of self-driving cars.

show abstract

“…Today, such discussions are resolved by assigning as liable a legal entity such as human or corporation, to which the robot can be considered as property or at least under their operational responsibility. This is mainly because up to now ANI is in place, and machines are mostly considered as a proxy of humans (Millar 2014) that would reflect upon them. However, as robots become more intelligent and autonomous, the link to a human proxy is becoming thinner, and the robots now become the actors that may need to be directly liable for their actions.…”

Section: Liabilities and Robotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Symbiosis with artificial intelligence via the prism of law, robots, and society

Karnouskos

2021

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics will have a profound impact on society as they will interfere with the people and their interactions. Intelligent autonomous robots, independent if they are humanoid/anthropomorphic or not, will have a physical presence, make autonomous decisions, and interact with all stakeholders in the society, in yet unforeseen manners. The symbiosis with such sophisticated robots may lead to a fundamental civilizational shift, with far-reaching effects as philosophical, legal, and societal questions on consciousness, citizenship, rights, and legal entity of robots are raised. The aim of this work is to understand the broad scope of potential issues pertaining to law and society through the investigation of the interplay of law, robots, and society via different angles such as law, social, economic, gender, and ethical perspectives. The results make it evident that in an era of symbiosis with intelligent autonomous robots, the law systems, as well as society, are not prepared for their prevalence. Therefore, it is now the time to start a multi-disciplinary stakeholder discussion and derive the necessary policies, frameworks, and roadmaps for the most eminent issues.

show abstract

Technology as moral proxy: Autonomy and paternalism by design

Cited by 18 publications

References 2 publications

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

The ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I

The Ethics of Accident-Algorithms for Self-Driving Cars: an Applied Trolley Problem?

Symbiosis with artificial intelligence via the prism of law, robots, and society

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About