Evan Christensen

CST 300
October 8, 2016

Ethical Dilemma With Self Driving Cars

Technology is now a rapidly growing part of many people’s lives. It is constantly

growing, advancing and being implemented everywhere we go. For many people technology is

something that they cannot live without at this point. For example, many people would lose their

minds if they had to go without a phone for a while. These devices and new advances will

always be a part of our lives now and it is just a matter of time before self-driving cars will be a

normal part of society. However, one of the things that much of society does not think about

when new life changing things are coming out is the ethical dilemma behind the choices that

have to be made when developing these new ideas. The dilemma for these self-driving cars has

been how will these cars be programmed in the event of a life or death situation where the

vehicle has to now choose to save someone on the outside of the car or the passengers that are in

it. Exploring all the options that go into this issue will improve the consumer’s understanding of

the situation and maybe give them their own opinion on how it should be handled.

So, who should the car be programmed to save? The problem behind this question is that

there are so many options and scenarios that can be considered that it makes it very difficult for

anyone to decide. For example, “How do you deal with a situation where somebody’s crossing

the road in front of you and to avoid it you have to swerve off a bridge? That is something you

have to write in the software.” (Lee). Many consumers are not considering this while looking at

new driverless cars when these are things that they should. These are not only questions that

have to be asked on an ethical level but now you must apply the law and decide who is going to
 Christensen 2

be taking the blame: the manufacturers, pedestrian, the owner of the car or whoever else a lawyer

can point his finger at. It would not be a surprise to see that many people would want to save the

passengers and the people they know in their vehicles. In a study provided by Thompson in the

article​ ​The Ethical Dilemmas Facing Self-driving cars, more than 75 percent of people asked in a

survey would rather sacrifice one passenger than kill ten pedestrians; however, overall people

would rather ride in a self-driving car that protected all of its occupants at all costs. So it seems

that even though laws are in place, people sometimes would rather make an ethical decision of

saving the people they know in the vehicle than hitting someone outside of it which could

potentially break the law.

Even though the ideas and concepts of self-driving cars have been around for a while,

they have not become as realistic as they are today​. ​According to Marc Webber in his article

Where to? A history of Autonomous Vehicles, “Driverless cars and taxis have been improving the

lives of millions in the pages of science fiction since 1935”. GM even came up with a concept

for an automated highway with its ride Futurama in 1939 (Webber).​ ​The ability of an unmanned

vehicle have also been around a lot longer than most imagined. By 1958 GM tested a 1958

Chevrolet that could follow an embedded wire in the ground and adjust its steering accordingly

(Vanderbilt). Since GM’s first step towards these driverless cars companies started developing

all sorts of prototypes such as, cars that were driven remotely or systems that involved huge

conveyer belts until what some would call the first truly automated car. According to Vanderbilt,

in 1977 a man by the name of Tsukuba and his colleagues unveiled a car that used cameras and

computer algorithms to process sensors. Many people believe that Google was the first one to

fully implement this idea, but the truth is they just did it better first and did it on a much more
 Christensen 3

noticeable scale. Since then these vehicles have advanced so much so that the previous concepts

look like ancient history compared to these new advances in technology and it all happened at a

very fast rate. Since Google’s release of its self-driving car in 2012 (Google 2016),​ ​many

companies have been working with the concept such as, Tesla, Bosch, Nissan, Mercedes-Benz,

Delphi, Uber and many more (MacFarland, Fung). With all of these companies trying out these

ideas many people only seem to hear about companies like Tesla and Google because they are

leading the race but that is because they're only two of a handful of companies that put out

driverless cars or driverless features on the road.

Both companies Tesla, and Google have had automated vehicles on the road for some

time now. There is a difference in features between the two though. Tesla’s vehicles have an

autopilot feature where the car drives itself on freeways while the driver is sitting behind the

wheel. Google’s vehicles are driving completely without a human operating them. Still, both

companies have run into some issues with their vehicles on the road. Tesla, recently, has had a

fatality “allegedly” due to its autopilot feature where the driver crashed into a larger vehicle

while it was turning in front of him (Morris). Even though Tesla states that a driver should not let

their attention slip while behind the wheel, it has been a huge topic for many people. In response,

“ Tesla has responded to the event in part by pointing out that this is the first crash after ​130

million miles​ of Autopilot use, while U.S. drivers overall average about ​one death per 100

million​ vehicle miles traveled.” (Morris). The only weakness behind the company's argument is

the fact that they are comparing their very limited research and history to the decades of history

behind normal operating cars.

 Christensen 4

Google on the other hand also has a very limited history but with far more report of

incidents. According to Michael Moore, “Google cars have been involved in nearly a dozen

collisions in or around Mountain View since starting to test on Streets in the spring of 2014”. It

does appear though, that these incidents were human error and not the vehicle’s. Even though the

vehicles were not at fault, will that mean that these vehicles are still just as dangerous? Through

the transition into a fully automated world there will still be human drivers on the road and

evidence shows that to be potentially dangerous.

So with all of these new ideas, concepts and plans, who all are they going to affect?

There are many stakeholders that have to be considered when something this huge is taking

place. Some stakeholders are but not limited to, the government, consumers, companies and their

shareholders and legal departments. Today focus is on the consumers, the government and

corporations such as Tesla and Google. It seems though that many of these stakeholders share

many of the larger scale values. Everyone is concerned about the safety of these vehicles, in what

way they will advance and how they can make them better. Values that the corporations might

have that other stakeholders may not are things like being the best in the market, how to make

their profit go up, how to expand and thing to that nature.

When it comes to the interest of these shareholders, it seems many are in agreement with

many things. The interest from the government according from Cecilia Kang is improving

society, “They are betting on the nation's highway to be safer with more cars driven by machine

and not people”. So the government is interested improving our highways, people's commute,

and their safety. Many consumers would also agree to this interest as well. Corporation's interest

might agree with those of the government on a smaller scale but their higher interest are in things
 Christensen 5

such as profits and being the leading industry in the topic. But it is safe to say that the majority of

the time most companies will always share that interest in everything they are considering.

As stakeholders, what are the options that can be taken into consideration for the ethical

dilemma? Unfortunately, not everyone will agree but it is best to take a look at the options that

we have to make a well-educated decision. When it comes down to this situation it comes down

to two very basic options, do it or do not. This is one of those topics that doing things any other

way will not work.

Keep everything the way it is. If we left everything the way it is and omitted the option of

allowing driverless vehicles on the road we would not have to consider these options and not

have to view the, what could be devastating, results. If we allowed these vehicles on the roads we

could find in a few years that it was not a good idea and that they are very dangerous and all the

time, effort and money put into this idea was for nothing. If that was the case, we would have to

spend more time and resources fixing the problem that was created by ourselves. Leaving these

machines off the road would make it so that machines are not making these ethical decisions for

us with preprogrammed code. Not only would it take away from our decision making it would

take a lot of time and money that not everyone has. An idea like this takes a lot of time to work

like it is supposed to. Since it is such a huge part of the world it will not happen overnight and

flawlessly. For these car to make the roads a safer place, the majority of people will need one so

everything is consistent. The problem is that everyone will not want one or have the money.

Many people prefer to drive their vehicles for various reasons, whether it be because they like

their new expensive Ferrari or they like having control. Also, new technology is expensive when

it first comes out. It takes a good amount of time before manufacturers and distributors can come
 Christensen 6

down to reasonable prices and not everyone will be able to afford them. With that being the case

it will either force people to continue to use their old cars or force them to use different means of

transportation they might not prefer. These reasons here are enough to bring society to an uproar

because, especially in the United States, society does not like to be told to do something else then

what is already allowed.

The next option from not doing it is to do it. With this option the government and

companies must address the problems and continue on. They must develop standards and laws

that everyone abides to so that everything remains consistent on the street and in the court rooms.

With this option, in theory, it is supposed to be safer. If every car on the road has a set of

programs it follows, then it is less likely that there will be accidents and injuries. It will eliminate

humans to make these last second choices that could potentially kill someone. For example if all

of these cars on the road are programmed to go the speed limit and keep the right distance from

each other we would have to worry less about human error. Like anything else though there will

be issues at first but in the long run it will be a better solution that is just a normal part of society.

Standing by these new standards and laws will eliminate the decisions the courts and humans

have to make. At first it will take getting used to but in the end everyone will start to learn and

understand much like what has happened many times in the past.

So at some point in the near future these decisions will have to be made and one should

never make a decision without looking at the pros and cons of each option. If we were to ban this

idea all together everything seemingly would remain the same. Humans would still have their

god given right of being able to make their own ethical decisions at anytime they choose while

driving. There would be no chaos from society because they thought the government were trying
 Christensen 7

to take away their rights. On an opposing view, we as a society will be missing out on an

incredible future to expand possibilities. In the long run, we will miss the potential to create

better transportation for cities that have horrible traffic. We will then be unable to make roads

safer than they are today and humans will still have that hard choice at the last second to swerve

off a bridge or hit the pedestrian.

Now, if we did allow the self-driven cars on the roads we would be faced with just as

important benefits and consequences. Society then would be driving in very consistent

conditions where there will be less people speeding and weaving in and out of traffic. One will

not have to make those very hard decisions of taking another life to save themselves. But other

issues arise. How will people in the lower class be able to afford something like this to make it

effective in the road? Sure, after time they could be the price of a regular car but initially they

will not, and to get the results you need to move forward and get the backing and funding you

will need to see results sooner than later. Also there will be some hard lessons that will be

learned. Unpredicted situations will occur with the possibility of fatalities. That could potentially

outrage people and could lose supporters. It will be up to the government and these companies to

resolve them and make sure that they can convince people that the issue has been resolved before

some people will want to get in them. Overall it will be up to all the stakeholders to come to

these decisions but like anything else there will always be pros and cons to any given situation.

Even though there can be good results in these studies, it will always b the bad ones that

grab the attention of the consumers and the government. Attention like that can also tend to bring

a lot of restrictions and new rules with it. Reuters from Business Insider said that companies are

beginning to find it harder to develop and move forward because of new safety rules and
 Christensen 8

regulations that are being implemented. So this is just another factor that would make the process

take longer to work consistently and develop noticeable change.

The path to driverless vehicles will not be an easy one with clear answers but it is one

that I do agree with. At first it may not seem like the most convenient decision but it is one that

will take us on a road to progress. If the government and these leading industries work together

we could have the potential for great things. This world is constantly changing and we need to

keep up with it.

Looking at this in the short run seems hard or impossible, and there will be some

obstacles to overcome but that's with anything. If we stand by the choices that we make and

work together anything is possible. Which is why I believe if we come together as a society and

work out these laws and standards and learn from the mistakes like any other new law we can

accomplish it. We have seen this done time and time again so it only makes sense that we

continue to do it. Even if it does not work out it is something that we attempted and learned

from. For example, if they gave up after the first rocket to get to the moon we would never had

landed on it.

Now as much as I do recommend these vehicles and as much I do have faith in them

there is no guarantee that they will work. This is just an assumption that I and other stakeholders

share. I do base my assumptions, however, off of the past and what I have seen the world

accomplish overtime and things like the space programs that have accomplished things that

before were never even considered. On a smaller scale, I have seen myself accomplish things

that I never thought I would even consider, which, really leads me to believe that if I can do it we

as a society can do it as well.

 Christensen 9

Given these opinions I am able to say that not doing it all together does give one good

counterexample and that is the right to make your own ethical decision when the time calls upon

it. That ability is a very powerful thing to have. There are lots of people that have the heart or

mindset to put other people’s lives ahead of their own and this idea kind of takes away from that.

Some people could even be drawn to a state of depression because their vehicle killed someone

and they could do nothing about it. But unfortunately, at least right now, you can only have it

one way and maybe one day there will be a way to fix this issue.

Some ways my theory might be wrong is that there seems to be little on the initial cost of

these cars. It is always just assumed through recurring trends that that is the case. It also seems

that my position could be limited in the fact that this has not really been done before so there is

not much data that supports many of these ideas; Furthermore, they are just theories based on

studies.

Like any other topic of debate there are always negative outcomes. For my

recommendation there are a few and some can be rather hard to accept. There will always be

things that cannot be predicted and sometimes hard lessons have to be learned in result. With this

concept though unpredicted scenarios could result in death or serious injury. Unfortunately this

will not be the first time that something like this has presented itself though and it is also not the

first time that mistakes will be learned the hard way. These possibilities are still an option today

with vehicles on the road but I believe when it comes from something new it tends to frighten

more people than usual. So this whole outcome is just an uphill battle.

Potentially, this whole concept is going to be the future whether or not people like it.

Given the history to this point in time it does not look like anyone is going to be stopping
 Christensen 10

developing anytime soon. New cars everyday are being introduced into the world with features

that require less work from the driver. It is a good thing, right now we have cars that have safety

features that warn you of things that you might not be able to see because it was in a blind spot.

For those who are absolutely terrible at parallel parking there is a feature now that does it for you

in seconds. These are all thing that contribute to safer streets. My favorite thing about the whole

idea of the cars is how it will affect traffic. Being a commuter I can tell you personally that if

everyone was going a constant speed, stayed an equal distance from each other, and did not have

to worry about focusing on the road while driving by something like an accident everyone would

be a lot happier because everything would be flowing and not going 30 miles per hour in a 65

mile an hour zone during rush hour.

Overall I do believe that this will affect the future in a positive way. We will have safer

roads in return, although we will lose some things like our own last second decisions. I do not

think that we will be able to remove all human drivers but if we can at least work together at

making it work on popular busy highways, that is where we will see all the rewards. The history

is there to show we are headed in the right direction and so is the technology. Things like the

government might stand in the way and some lessons might have to be learned the hard way but

ultimately the way the world works, progress is necessary and we cannot fall behind.
 Christensen 11

References

Greenough, J. (2016). 10 million self-driving cars will be on the road by 2020. Retrieved
October 12, 2016, from
http://www.businessinsider.com/report-10-million-self-driving-cars-will-be-on-the-road-
by-2020-2015-5-6

Kang, C. (2016). Self-Driving Cars Gain Powerful Ally: The Government. Retrieved
September 27, 2016, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/technology/self-driving-cars-guidelines.html?_r=0

Lee, R (2016). Can self-driving cars be programmed to make ethical decisions? Retrieved
September 27, 2016, from
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-self-driving-cars-be-programmed-to-make-ethical-de
cisions/

McFarland, M. Fung, B. (2016). These charts show who’s lapping whom in the race to perfect
the driverless car. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/01/15/how-googles-driverles
s-car-stacks-up-against-the-competition/

Moore, M. (2016). Google's self-driving car was just involved in ANOTHER crash. Retrieved
October 12, 2016, from
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/science-technology/696683/google-self-driving-car-c
r
ash-los-angeles-damage

Morris, D. Z. (2016). What Tesla’s Fatal Crash Means for the Path to Driverless Cars.
Retrieved September 27, 2016, from
http://fortune.com/2016/07/03/teslas-fatal-crash-implications/

R. (2016). The US government is about to take control of self driving cars away from
companies like Google and Tesla. Retrieved September 27, 2016, from
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-may-seek-power-to-pre-approve-self-driving-car-te
chnology-2016-9

Vanderbilt, t.. (n.d.). Autonomous Cars Through the Ages. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from
https://www.wired.com/2012/02/autonomous-vehicle-history/

Webber, M. (2014). Where to? A History of Autonomous Vehicles. Retrieved October 12, 2016
from ​http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/where-to-a-history-of-autonomous-vehicles/

(n.d.). Retrieved September 27, 2016, from

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-autonomous-cars-ethics-20160623-
snap-story.html
 Christensen 12

(n.d). Google Self-Driving Car Project. (n.d.). Retrieved October 19, 2016, from
https://www.google.com/selfdrivingcar/where/