3 ms·
>A more realistic example could be that 65% of routes are safer in a self-driving car, but then your personal commuting route might be in the remaining 35%. Th
by LatteLazy 4y ago
>A more realistic example could be that 65% of routes are safer in a self-driving car, but then your personal commuting route might be in the remaining 35%.
This is a good example, I think it will be the reality of any change like this. But that is sort of my point: Someone will always lose out. That's the price of things getting better for everyone else. And that's that standard we should judge all changes on: do we do more good for more people than we do bad by making this change? Then perhaps you can re-distribute.
That's what I am asking for here. If self-driving cars prevent 10 people dying down town but cause 5 to die up town, that's a good deal because 10>5. The fact it's a bad deal for those 5 people does not mean it is not a good deal for society as a whole...
- dauertewigkeit 4y agoPersonally, I am not a big fun of utilitarianism. Reducing deaths is fine obviously, but switching modes of death with the excuse that it reduces fatalities overall is in my opinion morally questionable.
- LatteLazy 4y agoI won't pretend utilitarianism is perfect, but I don't think we have much option. If we take the "no new problems" extreme alternative then you get worse and stranger results: Seatbelts would never have been legal since while they save 1000s of lives a day, they also occasionally kill people who would otherwise survive...
- catmiral 4y agoIn case of a "trolley problem[1]", you will not switch the track and will let the tram run over 10 workers instead of 1, because the tram is already on its way. Right? [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem