Ethical Case Analysis of Current Events Topic

docx

School

University of Nairobi *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

AUDITING

Subject

Management

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperFieldElk52

Surname1 Students Name Professor’s Name Course Studied Date Ethical Case Analysis of Current Events Topic The current topic I have chosen is that of self-driving cars and the ethical dilemma of whether artificial intelligence (AI) should be automated to shield the passengers or those outside of the car. This is a current topic as many companies, such as Tesla and Google, are currently working on developing self-driving cars. The ethical dilemma arises from the fact that, if there was an accident, the AI would have to choose between protecting the passengers or those pedestrians. There is no easy answer to this dilemma, as both groups of people are innocent and deserve to be protected (Chrnikova et al., 11). However, the Yugo automobiles CEO has to choose whether to approve the software design of the AI to save the passengers or not. The potential solutions to this ethical dilemma range from programming the AI to protect the car's occupants regardless of who is injured in an accident to programming the AI to protect the car's occupants only if they are not at fault for the accident (Hewitt et al., np). Finally, the CEO could decide to leave the decision up to the car's occupants by programming the AI to ask the passengers or driver what their preference is in the event of an accident. Each of these solutions has their own advantages and disadvantages, and it is up to the CEO of Yugo Automotive to decide which solution is best for the company. The ethical issues facing the CEO in this situation are complex. On the one hand, the CEO is responsible for protecting the company's customers. On the other hand, the CEO is also responsible for ensuring that the AI does not cause harm to innocent bystanders. The decision that the CEO should make in this situation is to authorize the development of AI to save the

2 passengers and driver. This will ensure that the company's customers are protected and that the AI does not cause harm to innocent bystanders. In turn, the overall security presented to both parties by the AI will ensure that the system becomes a favorite to the public and future drive-up sales for the car. The ethical dilemma faced by the CEO of Yugo Automotive is whether to authorize the software design of the AI to save the passengers or not. If the AI is set to protect the passengers at all costs, then it is possible that the car could be involved in an accident where the occupants are not at fault. On the other hand, if the AI is not set to save the passengers, then it is less likely that accidents will occur, as the AI would be making decisions based on the safety of everyone, not just the occupants of the car. Furthermore, if the AI is programmed to save the passengers at all costs, it is more likely that the passengers will be safe in the event of an accident or incident. However, it is possible that the AI may not be able to protect the occupants effectively, leading to injuries or even deaths. Additionally, the AI may protect the occupants at the expense of others, such as pedestrians or cyclists (Dixon et al., 282). the AI may become overly aggressive in protecting the occupants, leading to accidents that could have been avoided. The CEO must consider all of these factors in order to make the best decision for the company. He must decide whether it is more important to protect the passengers of the car or those outside of the car. He must also consider the potential consequences of each decision, such as the safety of the occupants, the satisfaction of the customers, and the reputation of the company. The topic of self-driving cars and the ethical dilemma of whether AI should be automated to shield the passengers or those outside of the car is an important topic to the computing field. Self-driving cars are a rapidly growing technology and are likely to become more prevalent in the near future. As such, it is important to consider the ethical implications of this technology.

3 The ethical dilemma faced by the CEO of Yugo Automotive is an important one as it has implications for the safety of the car's occupants and those outside of the car. The decision that the CEO makes will have a direct impact on the safety of both the passengers and pedestrians. It is also important to consider the potential consequences of the decision, such as the safety of the occupants, the satisfaction of the customers, and the reputation of the company. The computing field must take these ethical considerations into account when designing and developing self- driving cars. It is important to ensure that the AI is programmed to prioritize the safety of both the passengers and those outside of the car. It is also important to ensure that the AI is programmed to make decisions in the best interest of the occupants and not just the passengers. it is important to ensure that the AI is programmed to make decisions that are in line with public trust. The ethical issues that arise in this scenario are whether the AI should be programmed to protect the passengers at all costs or to protect everyone involved in an accident, whether the AI should prioritize the safety of the occupants over their comfort or convenience, and what the impact will be on public trust if the AI is programmed to protect the occupants at the expense of innocent bystanders. These ethical issues must be carefully considered and weighed before the CEO of Yugo Automobiles makes a decision. Analysis Sections: The moral agents in this scenario are the CEO of Yugo automobiles and the artificial intelligence (AI) system being used in the self-driving cars. The CEO is responsible for making the decision about how the AI should be programmed, while the AI is responsible for making the decisions that will be implemented in the car. Both agents have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the passengers and those outside the car. The CEO has the responsibility to make sure

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 that the AI is programmed in a way that will protect the passengers as well as any bystanders. The AI has the responsibility to make decisions that will prioritize the safety of the occupants and avoid injuring or killing innocent bystanders. The value at stake is primary,secondary and tertiary. The primary value at stake in this ethical dilemma is the safety of the passengers and the innocent bystanders. The passengers of the car are the customers of the company and the company has a responsibility to ensure their safety. At the same time, the innocent bystanders should also be protected from harm. The decision of the CEO of Yugo Automobiles will determine which group of people will be protected in the event of an accident. The secondary value at stake is the reputation of the company. If the AI is programmed to protect the passengers at the expense of innocent bystanders, it could lead to a decrease in public trust in automated vehicles. This could lead to a decrease in sales, as people may be less likely to buy self-driving cars if they perceive them as unsafe. The tertiary value at stake is the cost of the car. If the AI is programmed to prioritize the safety of the occupants over their comfort or convenience, it could lead to a higher cost of the car. This could be an issue for some buyers, as they may be less likely to purchase a car that is more expensive due to safety features. The stakeholders in this situation are the passengers and driver of the car, the pedestrians and other vehicles outside the car, the company developing the AI, and the CEO of the company. The passengers and driver are the primary stakeholders, as they are the ones that the AI is being programmed to protect. The pedestrians and other vehicles outside the car are also important stakeholders, as their safety is also at risk if the AI is programmed to protect the passengers and driver at all costs. The company developing the AI and the CEO of the company are also stakeholders, as they are the ones making the decision about how the AI should be programmed.

5 All of these stakeholders have a vested interest in the outcome of the decision, and their opinions should be taken into consideration. A possible course of action is to program the AI to protect the car's occupants regardless of who is injured in an accident. This solution would ensure that the car's occupants are always protected, but it could potentially result in innocent bystanders being injured or killed. The primary consequence of programming the AI to protect the car's occupants regardless of who is injured is that it could result in innocent bystanders being injured or killed. This could lead to lawsuits against the company, as well as a decrease in public trust in self-driving cars. It could also lead to increased regulations governing the use of self-driving cars, which could make them less attractive to potential customers. A possible course of action is to program the AI to protect the car's occupants only if they are not at fault for the accident. This solution would be fairer to both groups of people, as it would ensure that the car's occupants are protected unless they are responsible for the accident, in which case the AI would then protect the innocent bystanders. This solution would be more difficult to program the AI to make this distinction, however. The primary consequence of programming the AI to protect the car's occupants only if they are not at fault is that it could be difficult to program the AI to make the distinction between fault and innocence. This could lead to mistakes being made, which could result in innocent bystanders being injured or killed. Additionally, this solution could lead to increased costs for the company, as it would require more sophisticated AI programming. A consequence of programming the AI to protect the car's occupants regardless of who is injured in an accident is that it could lead to increased regulations governing the use of self- driving cars. This could have a negative impact on the company, as it could lead to decreased

6 sales and reduced profits. Additionally, this could lead to fewer people buying self-driving cars, as the public may feel that the cars are not safe to be on the road if they are programmed to put the occupants of the car above all else. A consequence of programming the AI to protect the car's occupants only if they are not at fault is that it could lead to mistakes being made. This could result in innocent bystanders being injured or killed, which could lead to lawsuits against the company and a decrease in public trust in self-driving cars. Additionally, this could lead to increased costs for the company, as it would require more sophisticated AI programming. Kantianism: Kantianism is an ethical theory that is based on the principle of universalizability. This means that an action is only considered ethical if it is able to be universally applied. In the case of the self-driving car dilemma, this means that the CEO should make a decision that is ethical for all parties involved, not just the passengers of the car. In this case, the best course of action would be to program the AI to protect the passengers and innocent bystanders alike. This would ensure that all parties involved would be protected, and that the decision could be universally applied. Act Utilitarianism: Act utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that an action is ethical if it leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In the case of the self-driving car dilemma, this means that the CEO should make a decision that will lead to the greatest good for the most people. In this case, the best course of action would be to program the AI to protect the passengers and innocent bystanders alike. This would ensure that all parties involved would be protected, and that the decision would be beneficial for the most people.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 Rule Utilitarianism: Rule utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that an action is ethical if it follows a rule that leads to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In the case of the self- driving car dilemma, this means that the CEO should make a decision that follows a rule that will lead to the greatest good for the most people. In this case, the best course of action would be to program the AI to protect the passengers and innocent bystanders alike. This would ensure that all parties involved would be protected, and that the decision follows a rule that is beneficial for the most people. Social Contract Theory: Social contract theory is an ethical theory that states that an action is ethical if it follows a rule that is agreed upon by all parties involved. In the case of the self-driving car dilemma, this means that the CEO should make a decision that follows a rule that is agreeable to all parties involved. In this case, the best course of action would be to program the AI to protect the passengers and innocent bystanders alike. This would ensure that all parties involved would be protected, and that the decision follows a rule that is agreeable to all parties involved. Virtue Theory: Virtue theory is an ethical theory that states that an action is ethical if it aligns with the virtues of justice, benevolence, and prudence. In the case of the self-driving car dilemma, this means that the CEO should make a decision that is just, benevolent, and prudent. In this case, the best course of action would be to program the AI to protect the passengers and innocent bystanders alike. This would ensure that all parties involved would be protected, and that the decision is just, benevolent, and prudent. ACM Code of Ethics

8 The ACM Code of Ethics contains eight different clauses. Three of the clauses that apply to this situation are 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. Clause 1.1 states that “Computing professionals should, at all times, act honorably, responsibly, ethically, and legally.” In this situation, the CEO of Yugo automobiles needs to consider the ethical implications of automating AI to protect the passengers of the car. The CEO needs to consider the safety of the occupants and the bystanders, as well as the company's reputation and the public's trust in self-driving cars. Clause 1.2 states that “Computing professionals should strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness, and dignity in both the process and products of their work.” In this situation, the CEO needs to strive to create a system that is both safe and effective. The CEO needs to consider the safety of the passengers and the bystanders, as well as the effectiveness of the system. Clause 1.3 states that “Computing professionals should be honest and trustworthy.” In this situation, the CEO needs to be honest and trustworthy in his decision-making process. He needs to consider both the safety of the passengers and the bystanders, as well as the company's reputation and the public's trust in self-driving cars. Software Engineering Code of Ethics The Software Engineering Code of Ethics contains six different clauses. Three of the clauses that apply to this situation are 1, 4, and 5. Clause 1 states that “Software engineers shall commit themselves to making the analysis, specification, design, development, testing and maintenance of software a beneficial and respected profession.” In this situation, the CEO needs to ensure that the design and development

9 of the self-driving car is beneficial to both the passengers and the bystanders. He needs to consider the safety of both groups of people, as well as the public's trust in self-driving cars. Clause 4 states that “Software engineers shall not knowingly release software that is defective either in behavior or structure.” In this situation, the CEO needs to ensure that the AI is not defective in its behavior or structure. The AI needs to be programmed to make decisions that consider the safety of both the passengers and the bystanders. Clause 5 states that “Software engineers shall maintain and improve their knowledge and skills needed for the successful practice of their profession.” In this situation, the CEO needs to ensure that the AI is programmed with the most up-to-date knowledge and skills. The AI needs to be able to make decisions that consider the safety of both the passengers and the bystanders. I would recommend programming the AI to protect the car's occupants only if they are not at fault for the accident. This solution would be fairer to both groups of people, as it would ensure that the car's occupants are protected unless they are responsible for the accident, in which case the AI would then protect the innocent bystanders. This solution would be more difficult to program the AI to make this distinction, however. There are several reasons why this solution is the best option. First, it ensures that the occupants are only protected if they are not to blame for the accident, which is more fair to both groups of people. Second, it reduces the risk of lawsuits against the company, as the AI would be programmed to make decisions based on fault. Third, it reduces the risk of public mistrust in self-driving cars, as it would be more difficult to blame the AI for mistakes. Finally, it could lead to fewer accidents, as the AI would be better equipped to make decisions based on fault.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

10 Work Cited Chernikova, Alesia, et al. "Are self-driving cars secure? evasion attacks against deep neural networks for steering angle prediction." 2019 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW) . IEEE, 2019: 10-21 Dixon, Graham, et al. "What drives support for self-driving car technology in the United States?." Journal of Risk Research 23.3 (2020): 275-287. Hewitt, Charlie, et al. "Assessing public perception of self-driving cars: The autonomous vehicle acceptance model." Proceedings of the 24th international conference on intelligent user interfaces . 2019.

Ethical Case Analysis of Current Events Topic

Related Documents