Moral Dilemmas of Self-Driving Cars - Special Academic Support

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

In this article on the ethics of self-driving cars, the author explains the moral issues and effects of self-driving cars. When creating a self-driving car, the programmer has control over the car to make moral decisions when the car faces a collision. The passenger of the self-driving car has no control over how the car responds to accidents; they must depend on the car and its programmers. The programmer’s control whose lives are prioritized when they decide who should live and die in a self-driving car collision. Of course, in many cases, the programmer has the unique ability to predict the accident beforehand and drive the car in a way that prevents the accident from happening. However, in certain cases, it might not be possible.

In such disastrous situations, the only option is to implement a priority rank level. The programmers can program specifically differentiate who to save or not save in a collision by making targeting mechanisms. That leads to programming the self-driving car to hit or avoid whomever they want and prioritize lives in scenarios when a collision can’t be avoided. After the car is programmed, no one has any control over what the car does even though the driver would be held responsible. Another option is based on consideration of the party who has done the wrongdoing, which ultimately led to the accident. That particular party/car could be penalized with more damaged caused while the innocent party/car could be saved. In the end, regulations are meant to be implemented with regard to these consequences.

The programmers try to decide who not to kill to satisfy the ethics of utilitarianism and provide the most good for the most people. They make ethical decisions on how cars respond to different scenarios and choose to save those who are most important for a society based on things like gender, social status, and age. For example, there is an ethical question if, say, a car is programmed to decide between protecting the driver (an 80-year-old with a terminal disease) and a passenger (a 16-year-old healthy adolescent). Choosing whom to protect between these two people is difficult enough, but especially when we add in the fact that a robot is deciding. Self-driving cars also incur ethical issues when drunk drivers who otherwise would be prosecuted for their wrongdoings on the road may be protected due to self-driving cars. Further examples are texting and driving self-driving cars eliminates the ones that are put on drivers to be fully alert. Self-driving cars interfere with the fate of unethical activities on the road. The technology promotes dangerous multi-tasking because driver’s fate is no longer just up to them. In this article, we can see the moral effects and consequences of self-driving cars on our society.

The virtue approach to ethics states that virtues such as responsibility help us to live up to our highest potential. In relation to the virtue of responsibility, is the technology behind self-driving cars consistent with responsibility? If self-driving cars discourage responsibility, then they dissolve that virtue. When self-driving cars are created, the programmers should be held responsible for their work and the decisions self-driving cars make. They must be honest about what they are working on. Based on the virtue approach, the programmers must ask themselves what kind of people they will become if they create these targeting strategies for self-driving cars?

From the common good approach, everything in the community should work towards the welfare of everyone. From this viewpoint, self-driving cars have an advantage because it has already been programmed, it’s easy to manipulate, and most tasks are done by the car. On the other hand, if a self-driving car is not well-programmed or isn’t being controlled, it could go out of the passenger’s control if something happens suddenly. The passenger is not equipped with the knowledge to take control of the vehicle if something unexpected happens. Additionally, our actions must also consider other drivers. If self-driving car technology is further propagated, then that will lead others to act inappropriately and without responsibility as well. People will become careless if self-driving cars become common because they won’t pay attention to what they’re doing because everything is controlled by the car. Thus, self-driving cars are not good for the community according to the common good approach because other people would become less responsible drivers.

Considering the benefits is essential when it comes to the discussion of moral dilemmas of self-driving cars. It has been known since the early stages. Autonomous vehicles can also streamline businesses. Meals on wheels? Try everything on wheels. Self-driving technology could lead to cheaper ride sharing. As we know, driving is big money. That means a radically reshaped economy, especially for people whose livelihood depends on driving, find themselves without work. It is shown that the cost of ride-sharing could drop so much that it becomes more cost-effective to join a sharing service than own a car outright.

In conclusion, Autonomous vehicles open up driving to more people. While some see driving as a liberating activity, it is not the same for everyone. The laws require drivers to have a valid driver license and self-driving technology could merge into other vehicles as well.

When evaluating the different ethical approaches to evaluate a particular action or decision it is important to note the different approaches to ethical considerations. From the utilitarian approach, which is a phrase is ‘the ends justify the means’, the action to allow surveillance is purely judged by the outcome of the action of surveillance. For example, if we are taking a situation in which an individual’s house is robbed and the criminal was brought to justice using video surveillance then from the utilitarian approach, we can conclude that the surveillance is ethical.

When evaluating the issue of video surveillance from the perspective of the rights approach, which states that what is most ethical is what provides humans with the basic ‘rights’ or dignities that they deserve. Take the previous example of the criminal breaking into the house and evaluate it through the rights approach. When we were referring to the utilitarian approach it seemed to be obvious that the ‘ends justified the means’ but when we look at it through the rights approach this isn’t necessarily the case. We must consider what impacts the surveillance has regardless of the outcome. Is it ethical if it can see our neighbors house? Is it ethical to keep the cameras always running? Even if it is for safety from the rights approach, we cannot consider this to be ethical if we take away the rights of other people in the process. For example, in this case, potential rights of privacy and private property.

However, ethical surveillance could be very well performed using modern scientific methods, which has the ability to find appropriate subjects. Artificial Intelligence incorporated on home security can make a huge difference. It makes possible to be selective in the monitoring process. In addition, the methods can detect abnormal incidence and abnormal behaviors of the subjects in order to reveal a comprehensive output. However, implanting this selective surveillance would answer the ethical dilemmas of the utilization of home security cameras.

When evaluating this issue from the fairness or justice approach our focus of the argument is ‘are all people in this situation being treated equally?’ In the running example of the home invasion that we have been working with how does the fairness or justice approach influence our decision on ethics? Well on one hand, if we bring the criminal to justice and he is held responsible for his actions then we are bringing justice into society using tools at our disposal to protect our private property. On the other hand, if other people who are not breaking the law, for example, a neighbor who is in sight of the camera and by proximity is always being surveyed, it may not be justified since they may not be aware of the camera and therefore have their personal privacy infringed upon.

As it can clearly be seen through these three perspectives on ethics evaluating one situation there are many considerations to be taken into mind. Privacy and ethics are a debate that goes back far into history and with advances in technology like doorbell cameras it affects our lives more and more with each new technology. There are many pros and cons to privacy and today, we must consider both before arriving at an ethical conclusion.

From a positive aspect, the inclusion of home cameras allows individuals to protect their private property and to have access to knowledge on what occurs in their home regardless of their presence. This is a clear example of a promotion of the human rights of life, liberty, and property. By allowing these cameras it enables an individual to have power over their personal property and the choices they take to protect it. There are also positive aspects regarding the upholding of the law, by allowing these cameras to be present it allows individuals to get compensation for damages to their personal property.

From a negative perspective, home security cameras can pose a lot of issues. These issues can be summarized as an invasion of privacy, potential to be hacked, and a collection of massive data by corporations. First, if these cameras are used in such a way as to reduce others right to privacy and property, for example, if a camera faces a neighbors house and they have no say, then that is a huge infringement on their privacy. Also, home cameras have the potential to be hacked by parties that would use this information for wrong doing. In such a situation who is held responsible? Is the company in the wrong to produce a product that is hacked and used against the wellbeing of the consumer? Finally, where does this information all go? Are companies such as Facebook and Google held accountable for the content of the security footage? What happens with this data after it leaves the homes of consumers? If people are unaware of the consequences, such as large organizations collecting data on them through these cameras for profit, is this a breach of security and privacy. These are all things to consider when evaluating the ethics of home security cameras.

The simple manifestation of an outdoor camera can prevent offenders. However, it is tremendously hazardous malfunctioning cameras since experienced criminals can easily identify them. Thieves will definitely analyze a home before they act on a mission. In this stage, if they spot cameras installed by the surveillance system, they will most likely abort the mission. In addition, if you are the victim of a burglary, the cameras will record the incident and help lead to the capture of the criminal and hopeful return of your stolen goods. Security cameras are not limited to the protection of a home.

In conclusion, the advancement of home protection in accordance with advances in technology is at an all-time high. The ability to protect personal property and have a sense of security is a hallmark of these advancements. Yet as humans who live in a society with other individuals, we have an ethical responsibility to consider the pros and the cons of these advancements. While there is a great opportunity, there is also great cause for caution. To use a cliché that sums up the social responsibility we have in consideration with home cameras, ‘with great power, comes great responsibility’

Click Here To Order Now!