Moral Machine MIT Crowd Source

[monadnocky]

Odd.... I did not differentiate between saving passengers versus saving pedestrians (very close to "does not matter"), whereas the mean response is equal between "does not matter" and "matters a lot."

Kind of scary - at least for pedestrians and perhaps cyclists as well - that there appears to be a bias towards saving the lives of the car occupants over the lives of others.

[David Tollefson]

Kind of scary - at least for pedestrians and perhaps cyclists as well - that there appears to be a bias towards saving the lives of the car occupants over the lives of others.

Doesn't surprise me at all, considering the current traffic situation seems to be a bias towards saving TIME over saving the lives of others...

[defspace]

I think I hate myself now.

[Craddock]

The moral answer depends on which ethical system you go by. The result could be simple Utilitarianism which won't be satisfactory in every case. There are other systems.
And where someone has to get hurt maybe the insurance companies would want to know who programmed, or even voted for, that response. Could deliberate harm be replacing accidental harm in this case?

[Craddock]

Ethics is an expansive field and the more you study the more paradoxes and problems appear. Doing the right thing isn't always a straightforward case of instinct or common sense.
Ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Mabouya]

I think they need to work on improving the reliability of those cars' brakes...

Apparently I like animals and don't like fat ladies.

(More seriously, my "save the animals" choices were done consciously just for kicks and to be perverse. I did not consciously attempt to go after the fat ladies, that was just a statistical fluke.)

Snap299.jpg

[Bob Ross]

Apparently I like animals and don't like fat ladies.

I forget who my Most Killed Character was but My Most Saved Character was also animals, and that was not "to be perverse" but rather from my sincere belief that they are the only victim in these scenarios who can legitimately claim to not understand the (possible) consequences of crossing the street.

But I also very conciously always chose to kill the vehicle's passengers rather than any pedestrians, because I believe there should be a higher standard for responsibility when you climb into a motor vehicle, even if you're 1) not the driver, 2) obeying all traffic laws, and 3) not able to control when/whether the brakes function reliably.

Of course, it's all a series of false dichotomies anyway; in any of those situations there's always a third (or fourth, or fifth) option that will have yet another outcome. Hmm...What if there were no hypothetical situations?