- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Against Leben’s Rawlsian Collision Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles
In Vincent C. Müller (ed.), Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence 2017. Berlin: Springer. pp. 259-272 (2017)
Abstract
Suppose that an autonomous vehicle encounters a situation where (i) imposing a risk of harm on at least one person is unavoidable; and (ii) a choice about how to allocate risks of harm between different persons is required. What does morality require in these cases? Derek Leben defends a Rawlsian answer to this question. I argue that we have reason to reject Leben’s answer.Author's Profile
Other Versions
No versions found
My notes
Similar books and articles
Against Leben’s Rawlsian Collision Algorithm for Autonomous Vehicles.Geoff Keeling - 2017 - In Vincent C. Müller (ed.), Philosophy and theory of artificial intelligence 2017. Berlin: Springer.
Legal Necessity, Pareto Efficiency & Justified Killing in Autonomous Vehicle Collisions.Geoff Keeling - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (2):413-427.
A Rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles.Derek Leben - 2017 - Ethics and Information Technology 19 (2):107-115.
Ethical Decision Making in Autonomous Vehicles: The AV Ethics Project.Katherine Evans, Nelson de Moura, Stéphane Chauvier, Raja Chatila & Ebru Dogan - 2020 - Science and Engineering Ethics 26 (6):3285-3312.
The Implementation of Ethical Decision Procedures in Autonomous Systems : the Case of the Autonomous Vehicle.Katherine Evans - 2021 - Dissertation, Sorbonne Université
Autonomous Driving and Public Reason: a Rawlsian Approach.Claudia Brändle & Michael W. Schmidt - 2021 - Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1475-1499.
Analytics
Added to PP
2018-10-13
Downloads
66 (#319,882)
6 months
6 (#856,140)
2018-10-13
Downloads
66 (#319,882)
6 months
6 (#856,140)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Safety requirements vs. crashing ethically: what matters most for policies on autonomous vehicles.Björn Lundgren - forthcoming - AI and Society:1-11.
Autonomous Driving Ethics: from Trolley Problem to Ethics of Risk.Maximilian Geisslinger, Franziska Poszler, Johannes Betz, Christoph Lütge & Markus Lienkamp - 2021 - Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1033-1055.
Rawls’s Original Position and Algorithmic Fairness.Ulrik Franke - 2021 - Philosophy and Technology 34 (4):1803-1817.
The Implementation of Ethical Decision Procedures in Autonomous Systems : the Case of the Autonomous Vehicle.Katherine Evans - 2021 - Dissertation, Sorbonne Université
References found in this work
Comparing Harms: Headaches and Human Lives.Alastair Norcross - 1997 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (2):135-167.
A Rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles.Derek Leben - 2017 - Ethics and Information Technology 19 (2):107-115.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-667477cd97-9l5tj dc2