Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 19, Issue 2, pp 107–115 | Cite as

A Rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles

Original Paper

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles must be programmed with procedures for dealing with trolley-style dilemmas where actions result in harm to either pedestrians or passengers. This paper outlines a Rawlsian algorithm as an alternative to the Utilitarian solution. The algorithm will gather the vehicle’s estimation of probability of survival for each person in each action, then calculate which action a self-interested person would agree to if he or she were in an original bargaining position of fairness. I will employ Rawls’ assumption that the Maximin procedure is what self-interested agents would use from an original position, and then show how the Maximin procedure can be operationalized to produce unique outputs over probabilities of survival.

Keywords

Autonomous vehicles Ethics Rawls Trolley problem 

References

  1. Anderson, M., Anderson, S. L., & Armen, C. (2004). Towards machine ethics. AAAI-04 Workship on Agent Orientations: theory and practice.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M., Anderson, S., & Leigh, S. (2011). Machine ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. L., & Anderson, M. (2011). A prima facie duty approach to machine ethics and its application to elder care. Human-Robot Interaction in Elder Care: Papers from the 2011 AAAI Workshop (WS-11-12).Google Scholar
  4. Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics: Are we ready for utilitarian cars? Science, 352, 1573–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Harsanyi, J. (1975). Can the maximin princple serve as a basis for morality? A critique of john rawls’ theory. The American Political Science Review, 69, 594–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  9. Lin, P. (2011). Robot ethics: The ethical and social implications of robotics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Nord, E. (1999). Cost-Value Analysis in Health Care. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Powers, T. (2006). Prospects for a kantian machine. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21, 46–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sassi, F. (2006). A prima facie duty approach to machine ethics and its application to elder care. Health Policy and Planning, 21, 402–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Skyrms, B. (2003). The stag hunt and the evolution of social structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Wallach, W., & Allen, C. (2010). Moral machines: Teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Pittsburgh at JohnstownJohnstownUSA

Personalised recommendations