Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist
So we should accept the other 90% of traffic morbidities because of the less than 1% of choices out of the "drivers'" control?
Strange thing to take a stance on at this point in the conversation.
"We have a heart for your transplant sir!"
"but will you fix my pink eye?"
|
You've missed the point. The question isn't whether from a purely consequentialist view, these cars will result in fewer fatalities. The question is, who is making the moral decisions that determine who lives and dies in the circumstances I set out. Essentially, this could be considered the first trial run of inputting morality into an AI... Even if that morality is applied automatically.
Someone is eventually going to have to program these things to, for example, determine whether it should avoid hitting an old person in favour of a young one. That's a moral choice. If an engineer decides to say, "yes, that's the right moral choice", that decision will likely have life and death consequences. Do we think that's a decision best left to the engineer? There are going to be more and more examples like this as time goes on.