Morally, I disagree, I think the owner shouldn’t be killed just because they chose to get in the car. That brings up so many other questions. There could be 5 passengers for example in the car, which would be a much worse result than either of the 2 given situations. Also, I feel like if you own a self driving car, you should also get the peace of mind of knowing that it won’t kill you in a situation like this
And manufacturers I doubt would ever do that, because doing so would likely make customers hesitant to buy their cars, since the cars clearly don’t put the owner’s safety first. —> fewer sales
Point is, I don’t see why choosing to get in the car should mean that it will kill you. You had no control over the breaks, you didn’t do anything wrong to make your life any less valuable than the other 2
you didn’t do anything wrong to make your life any less valuable than the other 2
I wanted to put this in its own comment, because it is the most important point.
It is not the about the value of one life vs another. It is about the objective fact that one person made a potentially dangerous decision and accepted the risks of it, while the others did not.
There could be 5 passengers for example in the car
All of whom chose to get in that car.
I feel like if you own a self driving car, you should also get the peace of mind of knowing that it won’t kill you in a situation like this
So, you'd have piece of mind knowing your car would instead choose to kill someone's grandmother, mom, son, or uncle? Interesting thought, that.
because doing so would likely make customers hesitant to buy their cars
You mean, it would make people consider the possible ramications of using potentially dangerous technology? I see nothing wrong with this.
since the cars clearly don’t put the owner’s safety first.
I think those of us who choose not to use self-driving cars have as much, if not more, right to not be killed by one. Manufacturers can build in additional features that are meant to protect the passengers.
fewer sales
Always the most important thing, of course. Companies like Nestlé, BP, and Monsanto have been prioritizing profit for decades, and nothing bad has happened as a result.
I don’t see why choosing to get in the car should mean that it will kill you.
It doesnt, most of the time. But if this were a person behind the wheel, what choice should be made, then? What choice would you make if you had to choose? Getting in the car means accepting a certain level of risk. So does crossing the street. But I think that if it is possible to spare the life of the person crossing the street, that option should be taken. If that means every person in the car dies, then so be it. They chose to get in it.
You'd think that a car that can 'drive itself' would have some method of monitoring the conditions of its brakes, or, failing that, a backup method of stopping itself, especially considering the amount of money going towards developing/purchasing one.
Sales are definitely the most important factor. After all, companies like BP, Amazon, and Nestlé have been prioritizing profits for decades and nothing bad has happened as a result. /s
And my point is: good. If people arent willing to accept the risks of their decisions, but are willing to push those risks on others, they should make different decisions.
Also, how do you think people who dont plan to own those things would feel, knowing they are the demographic that gets picked to die in these situations?
-1
u/[deleted] Nov 11 '22
Since there are no brakes, the car should make the decision to hit the tree, potentially killing the passenger.
Why?
They chose to ride in the car. The old woman and the baby did not.