Pros And Cons Of Self-Driving

Moral Arguments
Self-driving vehicles should be programmed to ensure the life of the driver because the task is more manageable than ensuring the life of the pedestrian. The driver of the vehicle should be put first in this situation because ultimately it would create less casualties. If a self-driving car were to attempt to save the pedestrian, the idea itself would change the entire landscape that cars already have implemented: to save the driver inside. Selling a car that favors the pedestrian over the driver would result in people not wanting to invest in that car to begin with because they would feel unsafe in it. Not only would saving the pedestrian be less realistic, but it would also change the way cars are built structurally. On the …show more content…
Therefore, the focus of this choice shifts to minimizing the casualties. If one were to attempt to tackle this problem, the most logical option would be to save the person who can more easily be protected, thus minimizing casualties. The fact that the subject is in the car makes the situation already more controlled as opposed to the pedestrian outside. The person who is driving is much easier to cater to as opposed to the pedestrian. The driver is already in a pre-designed space that can be used in order to keep them safe, while the pedestrian has nothing but the clothes on their back. It would be a much more difficult task to ask of the car to save the pedestrian. The pedestrian is always moving and already lacking in protection. Saving the pedestrian is therefore more of a gamble as opposed to saving the driver. Due to the fact that ensuring the life of the pedestrian is more difficult, it would only be morally appropriate to save the driver. If the car were catered to the pedestrian and it wasn’t successful in doing so, then (at least) two people would be killed. A life is unquantifiable and in any situation, I feel, the goal should be to save as many people as possible. While this is a difficult choice, saving the driver would be the most realistic. It is my firm belief that there would be less casualties if cars ran this way. It is moral duty to protect oneself over the pedestrian because each of our own individual responsibilities sum up our greater purpose. To throw that away for the pedestrian crossing the road is morally injustice not to society but ourselves. If we are morally unjust to ourselves, how can we be morally just to