自动驾驶汽车会取消驾驶权吗?

Q3 Arts and Humanities
J. Kranak
{"title":"自动驾驶汽车会取消驾驶权吗?","authors":"J. Kranak","doi":"10.5840/ijap20201217134","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the future, autonomous vehicles are predicted to be much safer than current vehicles and affordable enough for all vehicle owners. At such a point, should we still allow people to manually drive non-autonomous vehicles? Can we say people who want to drive have a right to drive? In this paper, we first attempt a deontological justification of a right to drive, by trying to derive the right from more uncontroversial rights, like the right to freedom of movement, but fail. Looking at the right on consequentialist grounds, both in terms of paternalistic justifications of denying the right and the externalities caused by manual driving, we are able to justify a right to drive. However, the externalities caused by manual driving (especially the risks imposed on non-drivers and the property damage) are enough to limit this right to drive to non-public roads.","PeriodicalId":35847,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Applied Philosophy","volume":"34 1","pages":"43-55"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Will Autonomous Vehicles Eliminate a Right to Drive?\",\"authors\":\"J. Kranak\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/ijap20201217134\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the future, autonomous vehicles are predicted to be much safer than current vehicles and affordable enough for all vehicle owners. At such a point, should we still allow people to manually drive non-autonomous vehicles? Can we say people who want to drive have a right to drive? In this paper, we first attempt a deontological justification of a right to drive, by trying to derive the right from more uncontroversial rights, like the right to freedom of movement, but fail. Looking at the right on consequentialist grounds, both in terms of paternalistic justifications of denying the right and the externalities caused by manual driving, we are able to justify a right to drive. However, the externalities caused by manual driving (especially the risks imposed on non-drivers and the property damage) are enough to limit this right to drive to non-public roads.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35847,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"43-55\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Applied Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap20201217134\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Applied Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ijap20201217134","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

未来,自动驾驶汽车预计将比现有汽车安全得多,所有车主都能负担得起。在这种情况下,我们是否还应该允许人们手动驾驶非自动驾驶汽车?我们能说想开车的人有权开车吗?在本文中,我们首先尝试从义务论角度为驾驶权辩护,试图从更无争议的权利中获得驾驶权,如行动自由权,但失败了。从后果主义的角度来看,无论是从否认权利的家长式理由还是从人工驾驶造成的外部性来看,我们都能够证明驾驶权是合理的。然而,人工驾驶造成的外部性(尤其是非驾驶员面临的风险和财产损失)足以限制这种在非公共道路上行驶的权利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Will Autonomous Vehicles Eliminate a Right to Drive?
In the future, autonomous vehicles are predicted to be much safer than current vehicles and affordable enough for all vehicle owners. At such a point, should we still allow people to manually drive non-autonomous vehicles? Can we say people who want to drive have a right to drive? In this paper, we first attempt a deontological justification of a right to drive, by trying to derive the right from more uncontroversial rights, like the right to freedom of movement, but fail. Looking at the right on consequentialist grounds, both in terms of paternalistic justifications of denying the right and the externalities caused by manual driving, we are able to justify a right to drive. However, the externalities caused by manual driving (especially the risks imposed on non-drivers and the property damage) are enough to limit this right to drive to non-public roads.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Applied Philosophy
International Journal of Applied Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
×
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