Skip to main content

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

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, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 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. 2.

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

  3. 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

  1. Aschenbach J (2015) Driverless cars are colliding with the creepy trolley problem. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/12/29/will-self-driving-cars-ever-solve-the-famous-and-creepy-trolley-problem Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  2. Bonnefon J, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2015) Autonomous vehicles need experimental ethics. Are we ready for utilitarian cars? Computing research repository. https://arxiv.org/abs/1510.03346v1 Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  3. Bonnefon J, Shariff A, Rahwan I (2016) The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 352:1573–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Doctorow C (2015) The problem with self-driving cars: who controls the code? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/23/the-problem-with-self-driving-cars-who-controls-the-code Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  5. Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review 5:5–15

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gerdes J, Thornton S (2015) Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. In: Maurer M, Gerdes J, Lenz B, Winner H (eds) Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects. Springer, Berlin, pp 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48847-8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Gogoll J, Müller J (2017) Autonomous cars: in favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Sci Eng Ethics 23:681–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Goodall N (2014) Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transp Res Rec 2424:58–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Harris J (1975) The survival lottery. Philosophy 50:81–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harsanyi J (1953) Cardinal utility in welfare economics and in the theory of risk-taking. J Polit Econ 61:434–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harsanyi J (1982) Morality and the theory of rational behaviour. In: Sen AK, Williams BAO (eds) Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 39–62

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lin P (2015) Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In: Maurer M, Gerdes J, Lenz B, Winner H (eds) Autonomous driving: technical, legal and social aspects. Springer, Berlin, pp 69–85 http://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-662-48847-8

    Google Scholar 

  13. Loh W, Loh J (2017) Autonomy and responsibility in hybrid systems – the example of autonomous cars. In: Lin P, Abney K, Jenkins R (eds) Robot ethics 2.0. From autonomous cars to artificial intelligence. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 35–50

    Google Scholar 

  14. Millar J (2014). An ethical dilemma: when robot cars must kill, who should pick the victim? Robohub. http://robohub.org/an-ethical-dilemma-when-robot-cars-must-kill-who-should-pick-the-victim Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  15. MIT Media Lab (2017) Moral machine. http://moralmachine.mit.edu Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  16. Mladenovic M, McPherson T (2016) Engineering social justice into traffic control for self-driving vehicles? Sci Eng Ethics 22:1131–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015) Critical reasons for crashes investigated in the national motor vehicle crash causation survey. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812115 Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  18. Nyholm S, Smids J (2016) The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: an applied trolley problem? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 19:1275–1289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Thomson J (1976) Killing, letting die and the trolley problem. Monist 59:204–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Thomson J (1985) The trolley problem. Yale Law J 94:1395–1415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Windsor M (2015) Will your self-driving car be programmed to kill you if it means saving more strangers? Science Daily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150615124719.htm Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  22. World Health Organization (2015) Global status report on road safety 2015. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en Accessed 4 Oct 2017

  23. Worstall T (2014) When should your driverless car from google be allowed to kill you? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/06/18/when-should-your-driverless-car-from-google-be-allowed-to-kill-you Accessed 4 Oct 2017

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

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucie White.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

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

Keywords

  • Autonomous cars
  • Self-driving vehicles
  • Crash algorithms
  • Trolley problem
  • Harm minimisation