Also, Autonomous vehicles can come to a decision dilemma. How should you draw in front of an accident, when it comes to damage. Answers have found US-researchers with a global survey. Thus, a majority would have to Dodge more likely to have children than Older spare, and more people than animals. The result, however, greater cultural differences, the researchers write in order Iyad Rahwan from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, in the Journal “Nature”.

The Internet survey with the title “morality Machine” made headlines around the world. The large participation made the researchers possible to analyze almost 40 million decisions in Dilemma situations. However, the survey was not representative; thus, for example, the young men were disproportionately represented.

Rahwan and colleagues to justify their questioning of the meaning for the acceptance of Autonomous vehicles in the population: “Even if the ethicists would agree, such as Autonomous vehicles, moral dilemmas should, your work is useless if the citizens of your solution would not agree to that.”

In a concrete case example, the brakes of the vehicle failed. The respondents had to decide whether to three older people who go through the Red road, to be hit by a car or whether the car is to be directed against a concrete wall. This would have been the death of the occupants, including a Young boy.

Overall, the participants had to make nine decisions in different situations, including: vehicle occupant or a pedestrian, men or women, Younger or Older, Athletic or Unathletic, people with a higher or lower social Status.

In the analysis by country, there were three major groups: Western, Eastern and southern clusters. The decisions in many Asian countries (Eastern Cluster) differ from the other groups was the fact that they would not spare the younger people. Instead, the respect for the older members of the community in these countries.

The southern Cluster (South and Central America) differs from the Western Cluster (Europe, North America), among other things, by the fact that the Central and South Americans would intervene much more often than to dispense with the Draw.

the results of The “Moral Machine” differ from the rules laid by the German ethics Commission, in its report, “Autonomous and connected Driving” in June 2017. As it says in rule 9: “In the case of inevitable accident situations, each qualification is forbidden according to personal characteristics (age, gender, physical or mental Constitution) is strictly prohibited.” In the same rule, three sentences is: “The generation of mobility, the risks Involved may not bystanders, not victims.” The results of the study found that a majority of respondents the world of moral ideas.

Basically, you find the goal of the authors is correct, a debate on the “ethical programming” of self-driving cars for a drink before they drive on the roads, says Silja Vöneky from Freiburg University in the study. “But we should not believe that we have to invent all of the standards and principles of a new, or change just because it is a new technology.” Dilemma situations, ‘ve already given it previously and with the human rights already existed in a legally-binding ethical principles.

Armin Grunwald, Karlsruhe Institute of technology warns, even before the conclusions of the study: “to Neither Play nor from surveys can be the ethical permissibility of standards learned. Otherwise, could be made after every severe crime a survey that would go out with almost certainly for the introduction of the death penalty.“ Grunwald was a member of the ethics Commission, which has written the report “Autonomous and connected Driving”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here