Cars without drivers still need a moral compass. But what kind?

David Edmonds · 14 Nov 2018

David Edmonds did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
The benefits of driverless cars will be immense despite significant costs.

Their wordsThe driverless car will exact significant costs (lorry and taxi drivers will lose their livelihoods), but the benefits will be immense.
Our reading
Trolley-problem dilemmas will be extremely rare for driverless cars.

Their wordsThe crucial point is to acknowledge that trolley dilemmas are going to be extremely rare.
Our reading
People will be more tolerant of machines making utilitarian decisions than of humans doing so.

Their wordsHowever, I think that when it comes to machines we will be more tolerant of their making utilitarian decisions.
Our reading
Letting passengers or manufacturers choose a car's morality would be farcical.

Their wordsIt would be farcical if passengers or manufacturers were free to choose their car’s morality for themselves
Our reading
Governments should impose a general minimise-loss-of-life rule on driverless cars.

Their wordsA much more straightforward approach would be for the government to insist upon a general “minimise loss of life” rule.
Our reading
A driverless car's minimise-loss-of-life rule should apply even when its own passengers' lives are at stake.

Their wordsMore controversially, the “minimise loss of life” code should apply even when the lives at stake include those of the passengers inside the driverless car.

Keep reading

More from David Edmonds