Driverless cars ponder who should die first

Are some lives worth more than others? The rapid development of self-driving technology is raising questions about who should be saved in car crashes, and bringing up old ethical dilemmas. A self-driving car carrying a family of four is careening towards a brick wall. It can either stay on course and sacrifice its passengers, or swerve and hit a pedestrian. What should it do? Now, imagine the pedestrian is a violent criminal. Does that change your view? What if it’s a baby in a pushchair? To help elucidate the problem, scientists have analysed more than 40 million responses to scenarios like this with their “Moral Machine”, an online game which puts players in the driving seat. They were “trying to understand the kinds of moral decisions that driverless cars might have to resort to,” says researcher Edmond Awad. The results reveal that we would prefer to save a baby above anyone else. A criminal is considered more valuable than a cat, but less so than a dog. While “large” people are less likely to be saved than an average person, their lives are valued above the homeless. And there are cultural differences. In Western countries like the US, people were more likely to favour inaction and let the car stay on course, while those in Latin America prioritised saving the physically fit or high-status. Across the globe, there was a trend towards saving the young over the old, females over males, and pedestrians over passengers. These issues were first raised by the trolley problem, a classic ethical dilemma set out by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. In the problem, a runaway tram is on course to hit five people who are tied to the tracks. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull it, the tram will be redirected on to a side track, but one person is tied down there. What do you do? A person who subscribes to utilitarianism, which prioritises the outcome of a situation, would say five lives are worth more than one and pull the lever. By contrast, a deontologist would say it is best to do nothing because it is wrong to actively kill. While these questions sound hypothetical, the reality may not be far off. Germany has already introduced a law stating that driverless cars must never decide who to save based on age, gender or health. Are some lives worth more than others? SOS Every life is equally precious, say some. It is morally wrong to say that someone is less deserving of life because they are old or homeless or have a criminal past. If we start making judgements about who is more valuable, we may reach a place where the rich and powerful are saved over the poor. Don’t be naive, reply others. It is clearly better for a murderer to die than a doctor who will go on to save many lives. Surely, too, it is better for an elderly man who has lived a rich and full life to die in the place of a baby who is full of potential. It’s best to admit this. KeywordsUtilitarianism - A theory of morality invented by English thinker Jeremy Bentham, who also devised a special kind of prison known as a panopticon.