Project Av Based On Ethical Issues

Right now self-driving cars and trucks are hitting the road and will soon be available to the general market . Major companies like Google, Tesla, Uber and Delphi are leading in autonomous cars industry. In the past few years, these companies have made great strides improving this technology. Addressing the concerns for this technology must be concluded before it reaches the general public. Given the current state of automobiles that don’t need drivers the American consumer needs to be mindful that moral decisions this technology is handling puts them at risk due to the fact that this is emerging technology, laws are being made that will shape this technology, and who is choosing who lives and who dies.

In her article “To Hit the Road, Driverless Cars Must Be Safe, Not Perfect,” Nidhi Kalra argues that because humans are untrustworthy when it comes to safe driving, we should adapt to driverless cars. She provides three premises to support her argument. First, she presents the data of deaths and injuries that were caused by human mistakes. Second, she points out that even though driverless cars may never reach perfection, they would never make miscalculations or mistakes that human drivers make all the time, such as drunk driving, drowsy driving, or driving with distraction. Third, she argues that driverless cars offer benefits such as bettering mobility and efficiency, reducing congestion costs and land use. With these primary premises, Kalra persuades that driverless cars should hit the road one day to reduce amounts of accidents that are likely made by human drivers.

The applied ethical project I worked on was, should I speak up and encourage the other units in my housing complex that do not recycle to start recycling, or is it not my place to tell them what they should or should not do? I chose this project, because I currently live in a house that is split up in to five different units and I encountered this ethical issue on a daily basis, as I continued to see the other people from the other units throwing away items that were clearly recyclable. The common area has two large recycling cans outside, right beside the regular waste trash cans, so they have the means to recycle easily, yet the waste trash cans are overflowing and the recycling cans are nearly empty, other than what my husband and I recycle.

Similarly, the article “The Moral Challenges of Driverless Cars” explains how driverless cars will be a safer alternative. It explains how humans are more prone to cause an accident than the driverless cars. The article describes the processing behind the vehicles and some problems they face while making them along with how this will delay their production. It also clarifies how the cars will be able to make the decisions that will keep people safe instead of putting them in harm’s way. Finally, the article describes the ethical issues and automation in cars today. According to Kirkpatrick, the cars are equipped with software that determine what reaction to make in different situations that would take a human more time to make, therefore, avoiding an accident. As stated in this article, there is still much work to be done before the cars are actually ready to sell to the public.

Accessed 14 Nov.2017. Filler strongly contends in this article that driverless cars will be much safer than self-driven vehicles. The author argues that it is entirely wrong to assume that humans are better than machines when it comes to vehicle operation. The errors committed by human beings while driving are the leading cause of road accidents and the robots that are well programmed easily substitute such mistakes. This article is an excellent source of the debates on the pro-driverless vehicles.

I find it humorous that this week’s discussion on driverless vehicles is the same exact subject my wife and I were talking about on Sunday during our unscheduled trip back home from Kansas City, Missouri. Since this trip interfered with our other plans, we were discussing how pleasant it would be if our vehicle was one that was automated because we believed we had better things to do with our time. Actually, this idea was even more evident when we became stalled in a traffic jam due to a stalled vehicle on the road. Therefore, if I were a decision maker in regards to driverless vehicles, I would choose Egoism to be the most ethical pre-programmed crash decision software. (O.C. Ferrell, Fraedrich & L. Ferrell, 2013). The reason I chose Egoism

Basil Hume once said, “Each person matters; no human life is redundant.” Are self driving cars a stupendous or minute idea; as stated in the following passages, “PRO/CON: Is it time to hop in self-driving cars?” written by Tribune News Service; “Caution light is still on for Tesla's Autopilot technology,” written by Scientific American; “Man who is blind "drives" around town in Google's new driverless car,” written by Ashley Halsey III and Michael Laris, Washington Post. If Hume believes that human life is precious, but self-driving cars are risking fatal injuries to human life, what’s the answer? Legalizing self driving cars is a neurotic and harmful idea.

One of the biggest challenges facing autonomous cars is legal issues. As of right now computer technology and artificial intelligence face numerous legal battles. Most people have heard of the technology that Google is creating in an attempt to make a “driver-less” car. As the technology gets more attention in the news Google’s driverless car has become a very opinionated and sensitive topic. People often ask questions like “What if Google’s car hit someone? Who would be at fault for the accident Google or the owner of the car?” These questions are currently being debated at the state and federal levels.

Our future is intense and frightening, but overall, unpredictable. We will have driverless cars soon in our world. They will overtake our roads and means of transportation. In my opinion, I think there is both good and bad with these driverless cars. There is both pros and cons dealing with this future. This future for cars will reduce drunk driving, reduce traffic jams, and reduce expense on the driver and our planet. The downside however, will come with putting millions out of business. Driverless cars are technology, and technology is not perfect, it sometimes crashes and does not always work the way we want it to. We do know that humanity is not perfect either. Humanity makes mistakes just as much as technology. So in this essay, I will talk about perspective one, perspective two, and perspective three, all talking about how driverless cars are good and bad for the future of our world.

In the essay, “American horror story: Laziness” I discuss self-driving cars. I utilize a Wall Street Journal article written by Daniel Michaels and Andy Pasztor titled Aviation Experts Urge Caution on Releasing Self-Driving Cars to back up my viewpoint that the general public shouldn’t be allowed to operate self-driving cars. I also dive into why self-driving cars are on the rise and what behaviors led humans to depend so heavily on technology.

The article “Here’s a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars with Adjustable Ethics Settings,” presents a very interesting dilemma I had not considered before. In theory, it makes sense that an intelligent vehicle could have the capability to determine who and where to wreck should the decision be needed. Unfortunately, the ethical robot car idea is problematic, and comes with numerous moral issues.

In class and in previous readings we have learned that Ethics is involved in every aspect of Engineering. The article “Here is a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars with Adjustable Ethics Settings” is a good example that shows off the great importance of ethics in engineering. It is about the future adoption of autonomous cars and the ethical dilemmas associated with them. Specifically, it talks about the infamous Trolley problem when applied to autonomous cars. The scenario presented by the article consists of a person driving her autonomous car and not realizing that she is about to collide with five people crossing a road. The car could then save the life of the five people by quickly swerving into another direction. However, there is another person there, and if the car swerves she would be impacted instead. The autonomous car is then in charge of making the decision of what is the right thing to do in this kind of situation. From a utilitarian’s point of view, the consequences of an act are the only thing that matters for it being right or wrong. The right act is the one that will yield the maximum sum of pleasure for all entities involved. Therefore, in the trolley problem applied to autonomous cars, for a utilitarian the right choice would be to swerve right and kill that one innocent person instead of the other five people. Although not presented in the article,

Robot cars are seemingly beneficial; however, it comes with a host of potential complications and hazards. Patrick Lin presents a facet of the potential problems associated with robot cars in Here’s a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars with Adjustable Ethics Settings. After analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of robot cars, including those presented in Here’s a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars with Adjustable Ethics Settings, I believe that we should stop the development of robot cars.

Google’s autonomous car had clocked up 1 million miles on public roads, and the researcher planned to do more road test in the future in order to expedite launch the Google’s car. (Protalinski, 2015) The technology of autonomous car is mature enough to use. In addition, the law for autonomous car has been already passed in serval states including Florida, Nevada, and Michigan. (Boeglin, 2015) It seems to be obviously that autonomous are coming into and bringing profound effect in our daily life. However, before greeting this revolutionary vehicle, there are several problems that need to be solved, such as ethical dilemma, liability and privacy problems. In this essay, which decision is moral in emergency, who will be responsible for an accident made by an autonomous car, and how much intimate information of owner can an autonomous car use will be discussed.

Most of the automotive companies believe that the next generation of cars are going to be autonomous vehicles, but not all of them have the same opinion about it. Some companies want to bring a fully autonomous car to reality, which wouldn’t need any human interaction to drive the car, while other ones are interested in driverless cars, which need humans to drive them. Both “autonomous” and “driverless” concepts give cars more control over themselves, and both aim to give more comfort for mankind, thus providing an easier life for drivers and passengers, but the idea of an autonomous car on the roads raises some questions about the safety of it and the responsibility over a car like this. A driverless car can have most of the autonomous features, it just needs someone to drive it, and then the control would also be from a person that would be more watchful and take responsibilities over the car.