Philosophical and Legal Approach to Moral Settings in Autonomous Vehicles: An Evaluation

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) promise great benefits, including improving safety, reducing congestion, and providing mobility for elderly and the disabled; however, there are discussions on how they should be programmed to respond in an ethical dilemma where a choice has to be made between two or more courses of action resulting in loss of life. To explore this question, the authors examine the current academic literature where the application of the existing philosophical theories to ethics settings in AVs has been discussed, specifically the utilitarianism and the deontological ethics. These two theories are widely regarded as rivals, and are useful in demonstrating the complex ethical issues that must be addressed when programming AVs. We also look at the legal framework, specifically normative principles in criminal law used to regulate difficult choices in an emergency, which some have suggested as a plausible defence for manufacturers who seek to program AVs using a utilitarian framework. These include the doctrine of necessity, the sudden emergency doctrine, and the duty of care. The authors critique each theory, highlighting their benefits and limitations. The authors then make a case for programming AVs using a randomized decision system (RDS) and propose that it could be a viable solution in dealing with certain moral dilemmas. Finally using our assessment, the authors suggest certain objectives for manufacturers and regulators in designing and programming AVs that are technically viable, and would make them morally acceptable and fair.