More Than Trolleys

IF 0.4 Q1 HISTORY
Noah Goodall
{"title":"More Than Trolleys","authors":"Noah Goodall","doi":"10.3167/trans.2019.090204","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As the act of driving becomes increasingly automated, vehicles will encounter situations where different objectives of safety, mobility, and legality will come into conflict. These situations require a vehicle to compare relative values of different entities and objectives, where the action of the vehicle has a moral component. While discussion of these scenarios often focuses on the “trolley problem” thought experiment, these types of life-or-death moral dilemmas may be rare in practice. This article identifies four far more common examples of routine driving that require decisions with some level of ethical reasoning about how to distribute risk. These scenarios may be useful for automated vehicle developers in assessing vehicle safety and responding to potential future regulations, as well as for regulators in developing performance requirements.","PeriodicalId":43789,"journal":{"name":"Transfers-Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies","volume":"136 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfers-Interdisciplinary Journal of Mobility Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/trans.2019.090204","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

As the act of driving becomes increasingly automated, vehicles will encounter situations where different objectives of safety, mobility, and legality will come into conflict. These situations require a vehicle to compare relative values of different entities and objectives, where the action of the vehicle has a moral component. While discussion of these scenarios often focuses on the “trolley problem” thought experiment, these types of life-or-death moral dilemmas may be rare in practice. This article identifies four far more common examples of routine driving that require decisions with some level of ethical reasoning about how to distribute risk. These scenarios may be useful for automated vehicle developers in assessing vehicle safety and responding to potential future regulations, as well as for regulators in developing performance requirements.
不仅仅是手推车
随着驾驶行为越来越自动化,车辆将会遇到安全、机动性和合法性等不同目标相互冲突的情况。这些情况要求车辆比较不同实体和目标的相对价值,其中车辆的行为具有道德成分。虽然对这些场景的讨论通常集中在“电车问题”的思想实验上,但这些类型的生死道德困境在实践中可能很少见。本文确定了四个更常见的日常驾驶例子,这些例子需要对如何分配风险进行一定程度的道德推理。这些场景对于自动驾驶汽车开发人员评估车辆安全性、应对未来潜在法规以及监管机构制定性能要求可能非常有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
33.30%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信