PHL-212 7-2 final project paper

docx

School

Southern New Hampshire University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

PHL-212

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by GrandDuckPerson810

1 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper PHL-212 Christopher Iskaros

2 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper 2-4 Activity GNS3 Sandboxing Part One Introduction The advent of autonomous vehicle (AV) technology heralds a transformative era in transportation, promising improved efficiency, safety, and environmental benefits. However, this innovation also introduces complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the realm of decision- making during unavoidable crash scenarios. These dilemmas revolve around programming AVs to respond to situations where harm to passengers or pedestrians is imminent, raising critical questions about moral and ethical decision-making in machines. Background on the Dilemma The ethical dilemma concerning AVs primarily addresses the decision-making algorithms that guide their actions in potential crash scenarios. Key dimensions and sides of this dilemma include:  Passenger vs. Pedestrian Safety : The conflict between protecting the occupants of the AV and safeguarding the lives of pedestrians and other road users.  Programmed Ethics vs. Human Moral Judgments : The challenge of encoding complex moral and ethical principles into the decision-making algorithms of AVs.  Legal and Societal Accountability : Questions regarding the legal responsibility and societal acceptance of decisions made by AVs. This dilemma is chosen for its relevance to both the immediate future of transportation and the broader implications for ethics in technology. It encapsulates the intersection of technology,

3 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper law, and moral philosophy, offering a window into the challenges of integrating sophisticated automation into daily life. Evidence Supporting the Arguments The "Moral Machine" experiment conducted by Awad et al. (2018) is a pivotal piece of evidence in this discourse. It illustrates global public opinion on moral decisions faced by AVs, revealing diverse ethical preferences influenced by cultural, economic, and geographic factors. This study underscores the complexity of creating universally acceptable AV decision-making algorithms. Goodall (2014) provides an in-depth analysis of ethical decision-making challenges during AV crashes, highlighting the difficulty of aligning programmed ethics with human moral standards. This work supports the argument for the necessity of a nuanced approach to ethical programming in AVs. Lin (2016) further explores why ethics matter for autonomous cars, examining various ethical frameworks that could guide AV decision-making. This analysis emphasizes the importance of ethical considerations in gaining public trust and ensuring the responsible deployment of AV technology. Marchant and Lindor (2012) delve into the legal challenges presented by AV technology, suggesting that existing legal frameworks are insufficient for addressing the accountability of autonomous systems. Their research backs up the argument that ethical decision-making in AVs is not only a technological challenge but also a legal one. These pieces of evidence, drawn from scholarly sources, are free from bias and assumptions, providing a well-rounded view of the ethical dilemma. They successfully support

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 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper coherent arguments for the necessity of ethical, legal, and societal considerations in the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Ethical Frameworks and Theories The ethical challenges of AV programming can be critically examined through the lens of utilitarianism and deontological ethics, offering divergent paths for addressing these dilemmas. Utilitarianism, as highlighted in the "Moral Machine" experiment by Awad et al. (2018), advocates for outcomes that maximize overall well-being, suggesting AVs should make decisions that result in the least overall harm. This perspective prioritizes the collective good but raises critical questions about the valuation of individual lives and the metrics used to weigh different harms. Conversely, deontological ethics, discussed by Lin (2016), emphasizes the adherence to moral duties and principles, asserting that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, irrespective of the consequences. This framework suggests that AVs should follow predefined ethical rules, such as always prioritizing non-harm to pedestrians, thus ensuring respect for individual rights and the intrinsic value of human life. Philosophical Concepts The dilemma also touches upon the concept of moral agency, questioning whether AVs can possess the capacity to make ethical decisions. Gurney (2016) explores this notion, suggesting that attributing moral agency to AVs challenges traditional understandings of accountability and responsibility. Furthermore, the application of virtue ethics, as discussed by Vallor (2015), introduces the importance of the moral character and intentions behind the programming of AVs, advocating for technology that embodies virtuous qualities like fairness and compassion.

5 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper Analyzing the Dimensions Moral Decision-Making : The complex process of moral decision-making in AVs is central to understanding the ethical dilemma these technologies pose. Awad et al. (2018) provide empirical evidence through the "Moral Machine" experiment, illustrating the global diversity in ethical preferences regarding the life-and-death decisions made by AVs. This research underscores the challenge of programming AVs to navigate moral decisions that align with universally accepted ethical standards. It reveals the public's varied ethical inclinations, highlighting the difficulty in establishing a one-size-fits-all approach to AV decision-making algorithms. Legal and Regulatory Implications : The integration of AVs into public roadways brings to the forefront significant legal challenges, particularly around liability in the event of an accident. Marchant and Lindor (2012) delve into these issues, emphasizing the inadequacy of current legal frameworks to address the unique challenges posed by autonomous systems. Their analysis supports the necessity for evolving legal frameworks that can accommodate the autonomy of AV decision-making, ensuring that accountability and liability are clearly defined in the new landscape of automated transportation. Societal Acceptance : The acceptance of AV technology by the public is deeply influenced by perceptions of ethical programming and operational transparency. Nyholm and Smids (2018) examine the ethical considerations surrounding accident algorithms in AVs, discussing how these influence public trust and acceptance. Their work highlights the importance of ethical transparency in the development and deployment of AVs, arguing that public skepticism or resistance to AV technology can be mitigated through clear communication of the ethical principles guiding AV decision-making processes.

6 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper Forming an Argument Using Ethical Theories In addressing the ethical dilemma surrounding autonomous vehicles (AVs) and their decision-making processes in critical situations, utilitarianism provides a compelling framework for argumentation. Utilitarianism, an ethical theory that prioritizes the greatest good for the greatest number, can offer clarity in programming AVs by suggesting that these vehicles should aim to minimize overall harm in crash scenarios. Application of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, as discussed by Awad et al. (2018) in the context of the "Moral Machine" experiment, suggests that decisions made by AVs should strive for outcomes that maximize overall societal well-being. This could mean programming AVs to choose the action that results in the fewest casualties, even if it means sacrificing the vehicle's occupants in certain scenarios. This approach aligns with the utilitarian principle of achieving the greatest good and provides a clear ethical directive for AV programming. Clarity Provided by Utilitarianism The application of utilitarianism to the AV dilemma lends clarity by offering a measurable approach to ethical decision-making—quantifying the outcomes of different actions to determine which would result in the least harm. This principle can guide the development of AV algorithms that assess potential crash scenarios and make decisions that aim to minimize overall negative impact. Emerging Questions However, applying utilitarianism raises several questions:  How do we quantify and compare the value of different lives in making these calculations?

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 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper  Is it ethically permissible to sacrifice a few for the benefit of many, especially when those few are not given a choice? Limitations of Utilitarianism While utilitarianism provides a clear framework for minimizing harm, it also faces limitations when applied to the AV ethical dilemma:  Quantification of Value : The theory assumes that the value of outcomes can be quantified and compared, which is challenging when dealing with human lives and subjective well-being.  Distribution of Harm : Utilitarianism does not necessarily account for how harm is distributed among individuals, which could lead to decisions that unfairly target certain groups or individuals.  Infringement on Rights : This approach might infringe on individual rights by prioritizing collective outcomes over the rights and welfare of individuals, potentially leading to ethical conflicts with principles of justice and individual autonomy. Forming a Counterargument Using Ethical Theories Deontological ethics offers a compelling counterpoint to the utilitarian approach in AV programming by prioritizing moral duties and principles over the consequences of actions. This perspective, grounded in the philosophical tradition that includes Kantian ethics, asserts the importance of adhering to ethical rules and the inherent value of individuals. Application of Deontological Ethics Lin (2016) elucidates the relevance of deontological ethics in the context of AVs, suggesting that decisions should be guided by an unwavering commitment to moral duties, such as the duty to avoid harming others intentionally. This principle could dictate programming AVs

8 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper to avoid actions that could intentionally harm pedestrians, irrespective of the potential to minimize overall harm, thereby prioritizing ethical consistency and respect for individual rights. Enhanced Clarity Through Deontological Ethics Deontological ethics, as explored by scholars like Lin (2016), provides a framework that offers clarity by asserting the primacy of ethical principles in decision-making. This approach ensures that AV actions are morally defensible on their own, without resorting to consequentialist calculations. Gurney (2016) further contributes to this discussion by questioning the moral agency of AVs and how deontological principles could be embedded in non-human agents, challenging the traditional boundaries of ethical responsibility. Emerging Questions and Limitations Applying deontological ethics to AVs raises significant questions, highlighted by Lin (2016) and Gurney (2016), such as the determination of universal moral rules for AV programming and the practical challenges of implementing rigid ethical codes in dynamic driving environments. Furthermore, the potential for conflict between moral duties, such as the duty to protect passengers versus pedestrians, underscores the limitations of deontological ethics in providing clear guidance in every possible scenario. Personal Evaluation of Ethical Theories Upon reflection, deontological ethics emerges as a particularly compelling framework for addressing the AV dilemma. This preference stems from the theory's emphasis on moral duties and principles, which resonate with a personal belief in the intrinsic value of human life and the importance of adhering to ethical standards, regardless of the outcomes. The notion that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, as discussed by Lin (2016), aligns with a personal moral compass that values integrity and the protection of individual rights.

9 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper Impact on Professional and Personal Life This analysis of the AV ethical dilemma, through the lens of utilitarian and deontological ethics, has profound implications for both professional and personal perspectives. Professionally, it underscores the importance of ethical considerations in the development and deployment of technology, highlighting the need for professionals in the field to engage deeply with ethical theories and principles. Personally, the dilemma reinforces the significance of ethical decision- making in everyday life, encouraging a more reflective approach to the moral implications of technology use and societal advancements. Change or Reinforcement of Viewpoints While this analysis has not fundamentally changed a prior viewpoint, it has significantly strengthened beliefs in the importance of ethical frameworks in guiding technological innovation. The discussions around utilitarianism and deontological ethics, particularly the insights from Gurney (2016) on moral agency, have deepened the understanding of the ethical complexities inherent in AV technology. This reinforced belief emphasizes the need for a balanced approach that considers both the potential benefits and ethical implications of autonomous systems. Known Limitations This analysis is not without its limitations. The primary challenge lies in the application of abstract ethical theories to the concrete, often unpredictable scenarios faced by AVs. The dynamic nature of real-world driving environments presents a significant obstacle to implementing rigid ethical frameworks. Additionally, the diversity of global ethical standards and cultural perspectives, as evidenced by the "Moral Machine" experiment (Awad et al., 2018), complicates the development of universally accepted AV programming guidelines.

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 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper In conclusion, this reflective analysis of the AV ethical dilemma, grounded in utilitarian and deontological perspectives, highlights the critical importance of ethical considerations in the advancement of autonomous technologies. It calls for ongoing engagement with ethical theories and principles, both in professional practices and personal decision-making, to navigate the complexities of modern technological landscapes responsibly.

11 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper References Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The Moral Machine experiment. Nature, 563 , 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 Goodall, N. J. (2014). Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transportation Research Record . https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2010/2010.16309.pdf Gurney, J. K. (2016). Crashing into the Unknown: An Examination of Crash-Optimization Algorithms Through the Two Lanes of Ethics and Law. Albany Law Review, 79 , 183. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2622125 Lin, P. (2015). Why Ethics Matters for Autonomous Cars. In Maurer, M., Gerdes, J., Lenz, B., & Winner, H. (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren . Springer Vieweg, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45854-9_4 Marchant, G. E., & Lindor, R. A. (2012). The Coming Collision Between Autonomous Vehicles and the Liability System. Santa Clara Law Review, 52 (4), 1321. https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol52/iss4/6 Vallor, S. (2015). Moral Deskilling and Upskilling in a New Machine Age: Reflections on the Ambiguous Future of Character. Philosophy & Technology, 28 , 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-014-0156-9

12 7-2 Final Project Submission: Analytical Philosophy Paper

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

PHL-212 7-2 final project paper

Related Documents