Skip to main content
Log in

Crash Algorithms for Autonomous Cars: How the Trolley Problem Can Move Us Beyond Harm Minimisation

  • Published:
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The prospective introduction of autonomous cars into public traffic raises the question of how such systems should behave when an accident is inevitable. Due to concerns with self-interest and liberal legitimacy that have become paramount in the emerging debate, a contractarian framework seems to provide a particularly attractive means of approaching this problem. We examine one such attempt, which derives a harm minimisation rule from the assumptions of rational self-interest and ignorance of one’s position in a future accident. We contend, however, that both contractarian approaches and harm minimisation standards are flawed, due to a failure to account for the fundamental difference between those ‘involved’ and ‘uninvolved’ in an impending crash. Drawing from classical works on the trolley problem, we show how this notion can be substantiated by reference to either the distinction between negative and positive rights, or to differences in people’s claims. By supplementing harm minimisation with corresponding constraints, we can develop crash algorithms for autonomous cars which are both ethically adequate and promise to overcome certain significant practical barriers to implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In her 1985 work in which she presents the bystander variant of the trolley problem, Thomson frames similar concerns in terms of rights. However, in order to maintain a clear distinction between her and Foot’s views, and because we will primarily draw from the 1976 paper in what follows, we stick to her 1976 usage of the term ‘claims’ in discussing these considerations.

  2. Thomson relies on the latter to account for why the surgeon may not distribute the patient’s organs (1976).

  3. Unfortunately we cannot, as of yet, point to empirical evidence establishing the actual appeal of this approach, because, as we noted in section 6, existing surveys do not unambiguously differentiate between involved and uninvolved persons. We hope that future research will begin to incorporate and emphasise these factors.

References

Download references

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Markus Ahlers, Sven Nyholm, and two anonymous referees from Ethical Theory and Moral Practice for their useful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucie White.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hübner, D., White, L. Crash Algorithms for Autonomous Cars: How the Trolley Problem Can Move Us Beyond Harm Minimisation. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 21, 685–698 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9910-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-018-9910-x

Keywords

Navigation