5 ms·

I couldn't get through most of the article because the premise was so weak. Specifically, I couldn't get over the "different people will die" argument - the imp

I couldn't get through most of the article because the premise was so weak. Specifically, I couldn't get over the "different people will die" argument - the implication being that the status quo is somehow more fair. This ignores the fact that many collision-related fatalities are not the drivers or in any way at fault. 2014 stats[0] show that 38% of fatalities in car accidents were not drivers. It's reasonable to assume that even more people who were driving were not at fault. Those deaths are arguably near-random in most cases. The argument that hundreds of thousands of random deaths are somehow more "fair" is an entirely poor argument in my opinion. [0] http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/gender http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalit...

SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
The "different people will die" argument has been debated for decades in the philosophical question called the "Trolley Problem." [1] The short answer is that yes, it's generally agreed to make the active choice to save more people, even if it means different people die. Air bags kill people sometimes in accidents where they likely wouldn't have died, but we put up with the risk because overall we're more likely to live through a serious accident. Air bags are fired off because a computer reading a sensor decides that they're needed. It's a very close analog situation, and yet the people making the moral argument against them have been downvoted to oblivion, and air bags are now mandatory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
- tynpeddler 10y ago
  I'm not sure if the trolley problem applies here. The trolley problem relies on one of the choices being passive. In the case of cars however, both choices require active effort. Either we actively build cars that cause X deaths every year, or we actively build cars that cause Y deaths every year. It seems pretty obvious that we should build the car that causes the fewest deaths. Even if this is a trolley problem, if we look at the problem from the point of the regulators, then the situation could be considered the trolley problem turned on its head. Regulators can do nothing, and let Tesla develop their autopilot and save lots of lives. Or regulators can actively intervene, stop Tesla, and thousands more will die. From this point of view, the trolley is headed towards one man and you have a switch in hand to kill 5 people instead. It's hard to imagine that anyone would choose to flip the switch.
  - SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
    > From this point of view, the trolley is headed towards one man and you have a switch in hand to kill 5 people instead. Fair enough. Like your analogy.

SomeCallMeTim 10y ago

The "different people will die" argument has been debated for decades in the philosophical question called the "Trolley Problem." [1] The short answer is that yes, it's generally agreed to make the active choice to save more people, even if it means different people die. Air bags kill people sometimes in accidents where they likely wouldn't have died, but we put up with the risk because overall we're more likely to live through a serious accident. Air bags are fired off because a computer reading a sensor decides that they're needed. It's a very close analog situation, and yet the people making the moral argument against them have been downvoted to oblivion, and air bags are now mandatory. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

tynpeddler 10y ago
I'm not sure if the trolley problem applies here. The trolley problem relies on one of the choices being passive. In the case of cars however, both choices require active effort. Either we actively build cars that cause X deaths every year, or we actively build cars that cause Y deaths every year. It seems pretty obvious that we should build the car that causes the fewest deaths. Even if this is a trolley problem, if we look at the problem from the point of the regulators, then the situation could be considered the trolley problem turned on its head. Regulators can do nothing, and let Tesla develop their autopilot and save lots of lives. Or regulators can actively intervene, stop Tesla, and thousands more will die. From this point of view, the trolley is headed towards one man and you have a switch in hand to kill 5 people instead. It's hard to imagine that anyone would choose to flip the switch.
- SomeCallMeTim 10y ago
  > From this point of view, the trolley is headed towards one man and you have a switch in hand to kill 5 people instead. Fair enough. Like your analogy.