Question

Please write down your response after reading the paragraph. (At least 5 sentences long. 150-200 words)

While it may be obvious to some that saving more lives would be minimizing total harm, it becomes difficult when we begin to consider the value of each life at risk. We cannot necessarily say the value of the driver's life is less than the lives of the pedestrians simply because of quantity. If the driverless car kills the driver, then it will be doing good for those pedestrians, not the driver, and vice versa. However, the challenge to our morality comes into play when we determine what the car's primary goal should be, to save the driver, or to save those in the surroundings. Right now, we all buy cars that will be safest for us as drivers and passengers, and I am not sure why this would change with the implementation of driverless cars. If these cars were to be implemented in society not everyone would have one, for one reason or another. Let us say that the driverless car runs a red light and crashes into a vehicle driven by a mother with her child in the back seat. If these two cars were driven by people, the person who ran the red light would clearly be punished. But now we are faced with a situation where blame cannot be directly placed on anyone. The issue now becomes, how can we get justice for the people who are impacted by the accidents of these driverless cars? While it may seem to be such innovative technology that makes life easier, the more our technology advances, the more we must advance to keep up with it and the issues that come as well.

Answer 1

Note: This response is in UK English, please paste the response to MS Word and you should be able to spot discrepancies easily. You may elaborate the answer based on personal views or your classwork if necessary.

(Answer) A driverless car would work through computer programming. This would mean that a driverless car would work on road patterns, sensors, monitor signals, since moving people and vehicles etc. The car would maneuver itself according to what the computer commands it to do.

The ethical conundrum here is if the computer makes a mistake, who is there to punish? If a laptop computer causes us some kind of loss or problem at work or home we might take certain steps. We would call the company, demand compensation under a warranty. Furthermore, we might sue, switch to another company or if the purchase policy allows us to do nothing, we might do nothing.

However, no one has lost a life in a scenario where our laptop gives us problems. This means that the graver the outcome, the more there is a need for punitive measures. The challenge would be to punish an inanimate object that doesn’t feel the brunt of a punishment. In such situations, the only helpful things to do would be to perhaps come up with the best alternative.

The victims of the accident would need to have remaining family members compensated. The company would have to look into the problem that caused the accident and call for an overhaul of other cars. This would make sure that the problem doesn’t happen again. Also, the company and the owner of the car would have to take the blame as they are the nearest things to accountable beings. Perhaps, like other punishments that aim to solve the problem, the aim of this one would just be to ensure that such a thing never happens again. As that is all that can be done.