There are ethical dilemmas in every phase of workplaces. Employees at every level face these dilemmas. A complex situation which indulges an apparent conflict which is mental between the employee is known as ethical dilemma (Parsons 2016). Here, the ethical dilemma described is that of the driverless car manufacturers. The developers who evolve self-driven car often face this problem and it is popularly known as Who to kill. The owners of these cars usually aim to save the outside people but in this method, they usually scarify their passengers. People prefer to use these vehicles for public transport but when it comes to themselves, they do not prefer these ‘utilitarian’ vehicles for themselves (Gunz and Gunz 2014).
What is going on
The ethical dilemma mentioned here is Who to kill. It is the dilemma of the Car developers who develop the self-driven cars in spite of knowing the disadvantages. The Autonomous vehicles (AVs) have the potential to reduce up to 90% of the accidents happening in today’s world. People who were queried in the survey said that they would prefer a self protective vehicle than utilitarian one (Gutman and Grant 2017). The dilemma rising over here is whether the owners should allow AVs for their family members or themselves as well. Here comes the ethical dilemma on four wheels. Various vehicle owners face this dilemma in their profession as well as choosing the vehicle for themselves and their family.
What are the facts
The AVs are programmed and the way they are programmed should be kept in mind. It has been proved from the surveys that people are willing to buy AVs for public transport but when it comes to themselves, they are not so keen about using the AVs for themselves (Harrison 2014). We are just a decade away from the era where driverless cars will be in trend. It is very essential for the future that their programming is done properly keeping all the advantages and disadvantages in mind. The algorithms should be tested and they should match with the condition of traffic and road. The main question is that how much should the world b dependent on the technology knowing that it can save their lives of few people but at the same time it can kill a few (Jacobowitz and Rogers 2014).
What are the ethical and non ethical issues
The ethical issue rising over here is how quick the world should move to the driverless vehicle era in spite of knowing the fact that these can save a few lives but at the same time they can take a few lives (Jafarkarimi et al. 2016). The question is whether such vehicles should be allowed on the road. The non-ethical issue with the driverless car is that what programming should be done in order to ensure the safety of all the people.
Who is affected
The people who tend to use these vehicle are affected the most. The owners do not face any problem as they do not travel in those vehicles. The people who travel in these vehicles are affected by the threat and the owners face the dilemma whether they should go for such vehicles for their own profit in spite of knowing the fact that it can cause harm to the passengers (Parsons 2016).
What are the ethical issues and implications
The ethical issue here is whether people should trust science with the lives. Driverless cars run without any human assistance so it is a bit diplomatic to trust them. Ethical issue rises with these AVs have to be trusted in spite of their harmful effects on the passengers travelling inside it. These are difficult to imply as they are not very safe for the people who travel inside it. Even though it can increase the safety of road, there are various problem with its implication.
What can be done about it
These AVs have to be programmed properly in order to make both the road and the passengers safe. People should know the extent to which science can be trusted with people’s lives. The programming has to done in such a way that the system knows how to react in the situation when accidents occur as if a human would be taken to court if he/she would be driving the vehicle (Vasquez 2016).
There are options to solve this ethical dilemma. The first thing that can be done to it is that vehicles should be programmed properly in order to ensure full protection of the passengers travelling. Proper laws should made in respect to these AVs for full protection of the pedestrians as well as the passengers. Owners should be aware of all the circumstances that people can face because of these vehicles. The options which suit best for these vehicles and the condition of the road should be implied befor the vehicles are released on the roads of country.
Which option is best and why
Doing of proper programming is best because this way, all the problems can be solved. Proper programming should be done for these AVs and experts should test before allowing those on the common road. With proper programming and testing, the threats can be reduced and people can be assured about their safety while they travel in these vehicles. Programmers should also keep in mind all the perspective while programming for these (Gutman and Grant 2017). If proper programming and testing is done, science can be trusted for the lives of people.
Hence, from the above discussion it is concluded that, self driven cars or AVs have many advantages but the ethical dilemma that the owners face due to these are huge and cannot be ignored. The developers who evolve self-driven car often face this problem and it is popularly known as Who to kill. The owners of these cars usually aim to save the outside people but in this method, they usually scarify their passengers. Proper measure should be taken for the safety of people outside as well as inside the AV.
Dinovitzer, R., Gunz, H.P. and Gunz, S.P., 2014. Reconsidering Lawyer Autonomy: The Nexus Between Firm, Lawyer, and Client in Large Commercial Practice. American Business Law Journal, 51(3), pp.661-719.
Gutman, J. and Grant, J., 2017. Ethical conundrums facing mediators: Comparing processes, identifying challenges and opportunities. Law in Context, 35(1), p.101.
Harrison, M., 2014. Under Attack: The De-Legitimization of State Ethics Rules in the Face of Prosecutorial Discretion. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 27, p.521.
Jacobowitz, J.L. and Rogers, S., 2014. Mindful Ethics-A Pedagogical and Practical Approach to Teaching Legal Ethics, Developing Professional Identity, and Encouraging Civility. . Mary's J. on Legal Malpractice & Ethics, 4, p.198.
Jafarkarimi, H., Saadatdoost, R., Sim, A.T.H. and Hee, J.M., 2016. Behavioral intention in social networking sites ethical dilemmas: An extended model based on Theory of Planned Behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, pp.545-561.
Parsons, P.J., 2016. Ethics in public relations: A guide to best practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Pope, K.S. and Vasquez, M.J., 2016. Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Vitale, S.A., 2014. Dope Dilemmas in a Budding Future Industry: An Examination of the Current Status of Marijuana Legalization in the United States. U. Miami Bus. L. Rev., 23, p.131.