4 ms·

Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? Your attempt at "humanizing" the sit

by jfrisby 10y ago

Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? Your attempt at "humanizing" the situation is merely being dismissive of the values of others' lives. Everyone who dies is special and important to someone. To wring your hands and rail against utilitarianism is to try and apply tribalism to moral reasoning. Because this person matters more TO YOU, you're suggesting that we should treat them as if they matter MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE. That seems to me an intrinsically selfish -- possibly even narcissistic -- view.

archagon 10y ago
> Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? To me, the key factor is blame. Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. But we can implicate a careless driver. A loved one should not have to die because a truck happened to be the right shade of white — not without much discussion and the possibility of legal recourse. There are many horrible, systemic things we could do to improve the lives of the majority at the expense of a few. In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit. Does the same reasoning apply to self-driving cars? I don't know. If the technology proves as safe as people make it out to be, maybe things will end up OK. But it's not a closed case by any means.
- jfrisby 10y ago
  We can't put a prematurely-worn brake line in jail either. An algorithm cannot BE "careless", in the legal sense of the word. You are comparing apples and oranges. Carelessness (negligence) is a different problem than a design flaw. An algorithm may be flawed, in which case blame lies with the companies involved in creating it and putting it in peoples' hands. Similarly, any mechanical component of a vehicle can be flawed -- and many can cause an accident if they fail. The companies responsible are legally liable already. > In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit Cars. Airplanes. Vaccines. All of these benefit the majority at the expense of a few. The idea that there is no liability here is absolute and utter NONSENSE. Minimally, Tesla can be sued for the flaw in their product and the harm it caused.
- ikeboy 10y ago
  How is a death with the possibility of legal recourse any better than one without? As far as I see, the point of legal recourse is to deter it from happening in the first place, I.e. it is purely consequentialist. If you reject such consequentialist thinking, what's the point of having someone to blame?
- tlrobinson 10y ago
  Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. No, but you can sue the company that built the faulty product, and in certain extreme cases imprison the responsible individuals. rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit What rights are being violated here? People are choosing to use unproven technology, which actually appears to be approximately as safe as humans driving.

by jfrisby 10y ago

archagon 10y ago

> Is your friend/loved one more valuable than the 90 other people who die in automotive accidents (in the U.S. alone) daily? To me, the key factor is blame. Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. But we can implicate a careless driver. A loved one should not have to die because a truck happened to be the right shade of white — not without much discussion and the possibility of legal recourse. There are many horrible, systemic things we could do to improve the lives of the majority at the expense of a few. In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit. Does the same reasoning apply to self-driving cars? I don't know. If the technology proves as safe as people make it out to be, maybe things will end up OK. But it's not a closed case by any means.

jfrisby 10y ago
We can't put a prematurely-worn brake line in jail either. An algorithm cannot BE "careless", in the legal sense of the word. You are comparing apples and oranges. Carelessness (negligence) is a different problem than a design flaw. An algorithm may be flawed, in which case blame lies with the companies involved in creating it and putting it in peoples' hands. Similarly, any mechanical component of a vehicle can be flawed -- and many can cause an accident if they fail. The companies responsible are legally liable already. > In the end, we usually determine that the rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit Cars. Airplanes. Vaccines. All of these benefit the majority at the expense of a few. The idea that there is no liability here is absolute and utter NONSENSE. Minimally, Tesla can be sued for the flaw in their product and the harm it caused.
ikeboy 10y ago
How is a death with the possibility of legal recourse any better than one without? As far as I see, the point of legal recourse is to deter it from happening in the first place, I.e. it is purely consequentialist. If you reject such consequentialist thinking, what's the point of having someone to blame?
tlrobinson 10y ago
Who do we fault in an accident? We can't imprison an algorithm or put it in jail. No, but you can sue the company that built the faulty product, and in certain extreme cases imprison the responsible individuals. rights of individuals outweigh the utilitarian benefit What rights are being violated here? People are choosing to use unproven technology, which actually appears to be approximately as safe as humans driving.