Four Perspectives on What Matters for the Ethics of Automated Vehicles

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)


The ethical discussion on automated vehicles (AVs) has for the most part focused on what morality requires in AV collisions which present moral dilemmas. This discussion has been challenged for its failure to address the various kinds of risk and uncertainty which we can expect to arise in AV collisions; and for overlooking certain morally relevant facts which are unique to the context of AVs. We take these criticisms as a starting point and outline four perspectives on what matters for the ethics of AVs: risk and uncertainty, value sensitive design, partiality towards passengers and meaningful human control.


Autonomous vehicles Robot ethics Ethics of technology Ethics of risk Meaningful human control 


  1. 1.
    Leben, D.: A Rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles. Ethics Inf. Technol. 19(2), 107–115 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    de Sio, F.S.: Killing by autonomous vehicles and the legal doctrine of necessity. Ethical Theor. Moral Pract. 20(2), 411–429 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Contissa, G., Lagioia, F., Sartor, G.: The ethical knob: ethically-customisable automated vehicles and the law. Artif. Intell. Law 25(3), 365–378 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keeling, G.: Legal necessity, pareto efficiency and justified killing in autonomous vehicle collisions. Ethical Theor. Moral Pract. 21(2), 413–427 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keeling, G.: Against Leben’s Rawlsian collision algorithm for autonomous vehicles. In: Müller, V. (eds.) Philosophy and Theory of Artificial Intelligence (PT-AI 2017). Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics, vol. 44. Springer, Cham (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bonnefon, J., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I.: The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science 365(6293), 1573–1576 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Himmelreich, J.: Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theor. Moral Pract. 21(3), 669–684 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hevelke, A., Nida-Rümelin, J.: Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis. Sci. Eng. Ethics 21(3), 619–630 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodall, N.: Away from trolley problems and towards risk-management. Appl. Artif. Intell. 30(8), 810–821 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nyholm, S., Smids, J.: The ethics of accident-algorithms for self-driving cars: an applied trolley problem? Ethical Theor. Moral Pract. 19(5), 1275–1289 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goodall, N.: Ethical decision making during automated vehicle crashes. Transp. Res. Rec. 2424(1), 58–65 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goodall, N.: Machine ethics and automated vehicles. In: Meyer, G., Beiker, S. (eds.) Road Vehicle Automation. Lecture Notes in Mobility. Springer, Cham (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P.H.: Human values, ethics, and design. In: Jacko, J.A., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, pp. 1177–1201. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman, B., Kahn Jr., P.H., Borning, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Zhang, P., Galletta, D. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems, vol. 5, pp. 348–372. M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kochenderfer, M.J.: Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Theory and Application. MIT Press, Cambridge (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thornton, S.M.: Autonomous vehicle motion planning with ethical considerations. PhD thesis. Stanford University (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Morris, D.Z.: Mercedes-Benz’s self-driving cars would choose passenger lives over bystanders. Fortune (2016).
  18. 18.
    Ogienr, R.: L’éthique aujourd’hui. Maximalistes et minimalistes, pp. 144–152. Gallimard, Paris (2015)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Millar, J.: Technology as a moral proxy: autonomy and paternalism by design. IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag. 34(2), 47–55 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooks, R.: The seven deadly sins of AI predictions. MIT Technol. Rev. (2017). Accessed 17 Jan 2019
  21. 21.
    Selman, B., Brooks, R., Dean, T., Horvitz, E., Mitchell, T., Nilsson, N.: Challenge problems for artificial intelligence. In: Proceedings of AAAI-96, Thirteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1340–1345 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    van Gerven, M.: Computational foundations of natural intelligence. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 11, 112 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matthias, A.: The responsibility gap: ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics Inf. Technol. 6(3), 175–183 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Di Nucci, E., de Sio, F.S.: Drones and responsibility: mapping the field. Routledge (2016)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Horowitz, M.C., Scharre, P.: Meaningful Human Control in Weapons Systems: A Primer (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nyholm, S.: Attributing agency to automated systems: reflections on human-robot collaborations and responsibility-loci. Sci. Eng. Ethics 24(4), 1201–1219 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Sio, F.S., van den Hoven, J.: Meaningful human control over autonomous systems: a philosophical account. Front. Robot. AI 5, 15 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scharre, P.: Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War. W. W. Norton, New York (2018)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Moyes, R.: Key Elements of Meaningful Human Control. Article 36 (2016)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schwarz, E.: The (im)possibility of Meaningful Human Control for Lethal Autonomous Weapon Systems (2018).
  31. 31.
    Mittelstadt, B.D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., Floridi, L.: The ethics of algorithms: mapping the debate. Big Data Soc. 3(2), 1–21 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bennett, S.: A brief history of automatic control. IEEE Control Syst. Soc. 16, 17–25 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Flemisch, F.O., Adams, C.A., Conway, S.R., Goodrich, K.H., Palmer, M.T., Schutte, P.C.: The H-Metaphor as a Guideline for Vehicle Automation and Interaction, January 2003Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Michon, J.A.: Human Behavior and Traffic Safety. Springer, Boston (1985)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Calvert, S.C., Mecacci, G., Heikoop, D.D., de Sio, F.S.: Full platoon control in truck platooning: a meaningful human control perspective. In: 21st International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC), pp. 3320–3326 (2018)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mecacci, G., de Sio, F.S.: Meaningful Human Control, Practical Reasoning and Dual-Mode Vehicles (2019, under review)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Heikoop, D., Hagenzieker, M., Mecacci, G., Calvert, S., de Sio, F.S., van Arem, B.: Human behaviour with automated driving systems: a quantitative framework for meaningful human control (2018, under review)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leverhulme Centre for the Future of IntelligenceUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Sorbonne Universités and VeDeComParis cedex 5France
  3. 3.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  4. 4.Department of Values, Technology and InnovationSection of Ethics and Philosophy of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations