Different Solutions to The Driverless Car Tram Problem
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61173/t1axb842Keywords:
Moral dilemmas, zero-sum game theory, morality as cooperation, decision-makingAbstract
This review discusses the approaches taken by autonomous vehicles to resolve moral dilemmas, drawing upon a range of theories including zero-sum game theory, morality as cooperations (MAC), and deontological ethics. It also considers factors such as personality, cognitive styles, and risk sensitivity. The conclusion drawn is that each theoretical framework provides a distinct viewpoint on moral issues, underscoring the imperative for sophisticated algorithms within emergency systems to ensure ethical decision-making. This article introduces a comprehensive theoretical framework that aims to guide ethical decision-making processes and meticulously outlines a structured approach to ensure that the intricate algorithms and artificial intelligence systems governing these self-driving cars are not only technologically advanced but also deeply rooted in the moral and ethical principles that are valued by society at large. This includes proposing a set of guidelines and ethical principles that developers and policymakers should consider when designing, testing, and deploying autonomous vehicles on public roads. This paper emphasizes the importance of striking a balance between innovation and ethical responsibility, advocating for a collaborative approach that involves stakeholders from various sectors such as technology, ethics, law, and public policy.References
[1] Jamaluddin, F., Saleh, N. M., Abdullah, A., Hassan, M. S., Hamzah, N., Jaffar, R., Abdul Ghani Aziz, S. A., & Embong, Z. (2023). Cooperative Governance and Cooperative Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. Sage Open, 2023, 13(3): https:// doi.org/10.1177/21582440231192944
[2] Ellemers, N., van der Toorn, J., Paunov, Y., & van Leeuwen, T. The Psychology of Morality: A Review and Analysis of Empirical Studies Published From 1940 Through 2017. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2019, 23(4): 332- 366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868318811759
[3] Kim, M., & Taylor, M. J. Cultivating morality in the Asia- Pacific: Influences, issues, challenges and change. Journal of Moral Education, 2017, 46(1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/030 57240.2017.1285222 Dean&Francis Ip Gao
[4] Ferraro, F. Utility, Predictability, and Rights: Bentham’s Utilitarianism and Constitutional Entitlements. Ratio Juris, 2022, 35: 38-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/raju.12335
[5] Joaquin Navajas, Facundo Álvarez Heduan, Juan Manuel Garrido, Pablo A. Gonzalez, Gerry Garbulsky, Dan Ariely, Mariano Sigman,
[6] Joaquin Navajas, Facundo Álvarez Heduan, Juan Manuel Garrido, Pablo A. Gonzalez, Gerry Garbulsky, Dan Ariely, Mariano Sigman. Reaching Consensus in Polarized Moral Debates, Current Biology, 2019, 29(23): 4124-4129. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.10.018
[7] Passell, B. S. A new look at ethical decision making : establishing the nomological network of desired moral approbation. 2003.
[8] Mishra, S. Decision-making under risk: Integrating perspectives from biology, economics, and psychology. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2014, 18(3): 280- 307.
[9] Louie, K., Glimcher, P. W., & Webb, R. Adaptive neural coding: from biological to behavioral decision-making. Current opinion in behavioral sciences, 2015, 5: 91-99.
[10] Curry, O. S. Morality as cooperation: A problem-centred approach. The evolution of morality, 2016, 27-51.
[11] Curry, O. S., Mullins, D. A., & Whitehouse, H. Is it good to cooperate? Testing the theory of morality-as-coperation in 60 societies. Current anthropology, 2019, 60(1): 47-69.
[12] Hyde, D. Are the Sorites and Liar Paradox of a Kind?. Paraconsistency: Logic and Applications, 2012, 349-366.
[13] Eggers, D. Hobbes and Game Theory Revisited: Zero‐ sum Games in the State of Nature. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 2011, 49(3): 193-226.
[14] Hashimoto, T., & Matsuo, K. (2022). Exploring moral decision-making in autonomous vehicle dilemmas: An empirical study. Journal of Autonomous Systems and Ethics, 7(1), 34-50.
[15] Misselbrook, D. Duty, Kant, and deontology. British Journal of General Practice, 2013, 63(609): 211-211.
[16] Abbasi-Asl, R., & Hashemi, S. Personality and morality: Role of the big five personality traits in predicting the four components of moral decision making. International Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2019, 13(3): 123-128.
[17] Abbasi-Asl R, Hashemi S. Personality and Morality: Role of the Big Five Personality Traits in Predicting the Four Components of Moral Decision Making. PsyArXiv; 2019. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/6azqs.
[18] Greene, J. D. The cognitive neuroscience of moral judgment and decision making. In M. S. Gazzaniga & G. R. Mangun (Eds.), The cognitive neurosciences (5th ed., pp. 1013–1023). Boston Review. 2014. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9504.003.0110
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 by the authors.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
