Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 193–207 | Cite as

Irresponsibilities, inequalities and injustice for autonomous vehicles

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

With their prospect for causing both novel and known forms of damage, harm and injury, the issue of responsibility has been a recurring theme in the debate concerning autonomous vehicles. Yet, the discussion of responsibility has obscured the finer details both between the underlying concepts of responsibility, and their application to the interaction between human beings and artificial decision-making entities. By developing meaningful distinctions and examining their ramifications, this article contributes to this debate by refining the underlying concepts that together inform the idea of responsibility. Two different approaches are offered to the question of responsibility and autonomous vehicles: targeting and risk distribution. The article then introduces a thought experiment which situates autonomous vehicles within the context of crash optimisation impulses and coordinated or networked decision-making. It argues that guiding ethical frameworks overlook compound or aggregated effects which may arise, and which can lead to subtle forms of structural discrimination. Insofar as such effects remain unrecognised by the legal systems relied upon to remedy them, the potential for societal inequalities is increased and entrenched, situations of injustice and impunity may be unwittingly maintained. This second set of concerns may represent a hitherto overlooked type of responsibility gap arising from inadequate accountability processes capable of challenging systemic risk displacement.

Keywords

Autonomous vehicles Structural discrimination Responsibility Network-effects Inequality Trolley-problem ethics Risk allocation Impunity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bakan, J. (2005). The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. London: Constable & Robinson.Google Scholar
  2. Bonnefon, J. F., & Sharif, A., Rahwan, I. (2015). Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics: Are we ready for utilitarian cars? arXiv. Retrieved October 12, 2015, from http://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03346.
  3. Coffee, J. C. (1981). ‘No soul to damn: no body to kick’: An unscandalized inquiry into the problem of corporate punishment. Michigan Law Review, 79(3), 386–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cummings, M. L., Mastracchio, C., Thornburg, K. M., & Mkrtchyan, A. (2013). Boredom and distraction in multiple unmanned vehicle supervisory control. Interacting with Computers, 25(1), 34–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, L. C. (2015). Would you pull the trolley switch? Does it matter? The Atlantic. Retrieved October 9, 2015, from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/trolley-problem-history-psychology-morality-driverless-cars/409732/.
  6. de Sio, F. S. (2017). Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessity. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 20(2), 411–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doctorow, C. (2015). The problem with self-driving cars: Who controls the code? The Guardian. Retrieved December 23, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/23/the-problem-with-self-driving-cars-who-controls-the-code.
  8. Douma, F., & Palodichuk, S. A. (2012). Criminal liability issues created by autonomous vehicles. Santa Clara Law Review 52(4), 1157–1169.Google Scholar
  9. Edmonds, D. (2013). Would you kill the fat man? The trolley problem and what your answer tells us about right and wrong. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2006). Value sensitive design and information systems. In P. Zhang & D. F. Galletta (Eds.), Human–computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations (pp. 348–372). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 14(3), 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerdes, J. C., & Thornton, S. M. (2015). Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren (pp. 87–102). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gleick, J. (1997). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Vintage.MATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodall, N. J. (2014). Machine Ethics and Automated Vehicles. In G. Meyer & S. Beiker (Eds.), Road vehicle automation (pp. 93–102). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodall, N. J. (2016). Away from trolley problems and toward risk management. Applied Artificial Intelligence 30(8), 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham, K. (2012). Of frightened horses and autonomous vehicles: Tort law and its assimilation of innovations. Santa Clara Law Review, 52(4), 1241.Google Scholar
  17. Hart, H. L. A. (2008). Punishment and responsibility: Essays in the philosophy of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hevelke, A., & Nida-Rümelin, J. (2015). Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: An ethical analysis. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(3), 619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heyns, C. (2016). Autonomous weapons systems: Living a dignified life and dying a dignified death. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck, R. Geiss, H.-Y. Liu, & C. Kress (Eds.), Autonomous weapons systems (pp. 3–20). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jain, N. (2016). Autonomous weapons systems: New frameworks for individual responsibility. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck, R. Geiss, H.-Y. Liu, & C. Kress (Eds.), Autonomous weapons systems—Law, ethics policy (pp. 303–324). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lin, P. (2013a). The ethics of saving lives with autonomous cars is far murkier than you think. WIRED. Retrieved July 30, 2013, from http://www.wired.com/2013/07/the-surprising-ethics-of-robot-cars/.
  22. Lin, P. (2013b). The ethics of autonomous cars. The Atlantic. Retrieved October 8, 2013, from http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/280360/.
  23. Lin, P. (2014a). The robot car of tomorrow may just be programmed to hit you. WIRED. Retrieved May 6, 2014, from http://www.wired.com/2014/05/the-robot-car-of-tomorrow-might-just-be-programmed-to-hit-you/.
  24. Lin, P. (2014b). Here’s a terrible idea: Robot cars with adjustable ethics settings. WIRED. Retrieved August 18, 2014, from http://www.wired.com/2014/08/heres-a-terrible-idea-robot-cars-with-adjustable-ethics-settings/.
  25. Lin, P. (2015). Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz, & H. Winner (Eds.), Autonomes Fahren (pp. 69–85). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liu, H.-Y. (2015). Law’s impunity: Responsibility and the modern private military company. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  27. Liu, H.-Y. (2016). Refining responsibility: Differentiating two types of responsibility issues raised by autonomous weapons systems. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck, R. Geiss, H.-Y. Liu, & C. Kress (Eds.), Autonomous weapons systems—Law, ethics policy (pp. 325–344). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacCormick, N. (1995). Argumentation and interpretation in law. Argumentation, 9(3), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marchant, G. E., & Lindor, R. A. (2012). The coming collision between autonomous vehicles and the liability system. Santa Clara Law Review, 52(4), 1321.Google Scholar
  30. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and Information Technology, 6(3), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nyholm, S., & Smids, J. (2016). The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: An applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(5), 1275–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puhl, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9(12), 788–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robbins, M. (2016). Statistically, self-driving cars are about to kill someone. What happens next? The Guardian. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/14/statistically-self-driving-cars-are-about-to-kill-someone-what-happens-next.
  34. Salomon v A Salomon. (1897). [1897] AC 22. U.K. House of Lords.Google Scholar
  35. Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad. (1886). 118 U.S. 394. U.S. Supreme Court.Google Scholar
  36. Schulzke, M. (2013). Autonomous weapons and distributed responsibility. Philosophy & Technology, 26(2), 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seck, S. L. (2011). Collective responsibility and transnational corporate conduct. In T. Isaacs & R. Vernon (Eds.), Accountability for collective wrongdoing (pp. 140–168). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Suchman, L., & Weber, J. (2016). Human–machine autonomies. In N. Bhuta, S. Beck, R. Geiss, H.-Y. Liu, & C. Kress (Eds.), Autonomous weapons systems: Law, ethics, policy (pp. 75–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Veitch, S. (2007). Law and irresponsibility: On the legitimation of human suffering. Oxford: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for International Law, Conflict and Crisis, Faculty of LawUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations