Responsibility for Crashes of Autonomous Vehicles: An Ethical Analysis

Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (3):619-630 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

A number of companies including Google and BMW are currently working on the development of autonomous cars. But if fully autonomous cars are going to drive on our roads, it must be decided who is to be held responsible in case of accidents. This involves not only legal questions, but also moral ones. The first question discussed is whether we should try to design the tort liability for car manufacturers in a way that will help along the development and improvement of autonomous vehicles. In particular, Patrick Lin’s concern that any security gain derived from the introduction of autonomous cars would constitute a trade-off in human lives will be addressed. The second question is whether it would be morally permissible to impose liability on the user based on a duty to pay attention to the road and traffic and to intervene when necessary to avoid accidents. Doubts about the moral legitimacy of such a scheme are based on the notion that it is a form of defamation if a person is held to blame for causing the death of another by his inattention if he never had a real chance to intervene. Therefore, the legitimacy of such an approach would depend on the user having an actual chance to do so. The last option discussed in this paper is a system in which a person using an autonomous vehicle has no duty of interfering, but is still held responsible for possible accidents. Two ways of doing so are discussed, but only one is judged morally feasible

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Imputing Driverhood.Jeffrey K. Gurney - 2017 - In Patrick Lin, Keith Abney & Ryan Jenkins, Robot Ethics 2.0: From Autonomous Cars to Artificial Intelligence. New York, US: Oxford University Press. pp. 51-65.
Should Manual Driving be (Eventually) Outlawed?Julian F. Müller & Jan Gogoll - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (3):1549-1567.
Autonomous Vehicles and Moral Uncertainty.Vikram Bhargava & Tae Wan Kim - 2017 - In Patrick Lin, Keith Abney & Ryan Jenkins, Robot Ethics 2.0: From Autonomous Cars to Artificial Intelligence. New York, US: Oxford University Press. pp. 5-19.
The German Ethics Code for Automated and Connected Driving.Christoph Luetge - 2017 - Philosophy and Technology 30 (4):547-558.
Theoretical foundations for the responsibility of autonomous agents.Jaap Hage - 2017 - Artificial Intelligence and Law 25 (3):255-271.
Autonomous Cars: In Favor of a Mandatory Ethics Setting.Jan Gogoll & Julian F. Müller - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (3):681-700.
Autonomy and Responsibility in Hybrid Systems.Wulf Loh & Janina Loh - 2017 - In Patrick Lin, Keith Abney & Ryan Jenkins, Robot Ethics 2.0: From Autonomous Cars to Artificial Intelligence. New York, US: Oxford University Press. pp. 35-50.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-06-10

Downloads
524 (#103,814)

6 months
44 (#192,060)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Julian Nida-Rümelin
Humboldt University, Berlin

References found in this work

Moral Luck.B. A. O. Williams & T. Nagel - 1976 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 50 (1):115-152.
Moral Luck.Thomas Nagel - 1993 - In Daniel Statman, Moral Luck. SUNY Press. pp. 141--166.
Crimes, harms, and wrongs: on the principles of criminalisation.A. P. Simester - 2011 - Portland, Or.: Hart. Edited by Andrew Von Hirsch.
Kritik des Konsequentialismus.Julian Nida-rümelin - 1995 - Erkenntnis 42 (3):419-422.

View all 11 references / Add more references