2 ms·
I personally would rather not have sexist cars that would hit a same-aged man over a same-aged woman. Women and children first is not a policy of who is most v
by zanny 11y ago
I personally would rather not have sexist cars that would hit a same-aged man over a same-aged woman.
Women and children first is not a policy of who is most valuable. It is a policy of who is most vulnerable. In disasters it is presumed that the women and children cannot fend for themselves (and while there is a biological aspect to women being on average weaker than men the presumption of women and children first is still painfully sexist) and that the men coming up behind are more likely to survive than any alternative, where men go first and "the vulnerable" take up the rear.
Even besides that, how do you know if a child is more valuable than an elderly person?
Its not as simple a problem as yesteryears well intentioned sexism and ageism. But the real answer is much simpler:
The car would, in the situation where it could not avoid hitting a person, hit whomever it computes to be most likely to survive.
- Nadya 11y agoExpand the question to factor that the person struck will die with 100% certainty and you arrive to the same situation of which choice to make. The choice of children vs elderly rarely comes down to value - but rather life. The elderly person has lived their life while the child, potentially, has many more years ahead of them. Humans don't tend to give a value to life other than life itself - and extending life or saving multiple lives over a single life tends to be the popular choice. It would be impossible to judge a persons' "value" or measure it without having information on them prior to the event. See: The Trolley Problem [0] http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/05/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-new-research-on-a-classic-debate/ http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/05/would-you-kill-one-per... [1] http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP