Solis 1

Miguel Solis
CST 300 Writing Lab
Paper 2
Utilitarian vs Egoistic Self-driving Cars

Every self-driving car company makes the promise that by removing people from behind

a steering wheel, the streets will be safer. That is an important issue because according to a

report from the World Health Organization, an estimated 1.35 million people die a year from

road-related accidents (Road traffic injuries, 2018). A report by the McKinsey Institute predicts

that self-driving cars will reduce traffic accidents by up to 90% (Nowak, 2015). With an array of

sensors and advanced computing techniques, they can sense objects out of human sight and

better predict the motion of every object on the road. There is no doubt that self-driving cars will

reduce automobile accidents, but they will not eliminate them.

Even before self-driving cars are readily available, people are talking about how to deal

with self-driving car accidents. These cars will have much faster response times and better

situational awareness than any human driver. No matter how unlikely accidents will be, it raises

an ethical dilemma. How should self-driving cars decide who to protect in life and death

situations? Like most ethical dilemmas, there are many stakeholders but we will focus on the two

that have the most to lose. The first stakeholder is a combination of the government and a

hypothetical majority of people because the government is the proxy of the people; this

stakeholder will be called the government moving forward. The second will be a combination of

auto manufacturers and self-driving car companies, which we shall refer to as self-driving car

companies.

Should the government impose regulations on how self-driving cars should respond to

life and death situations? After all, the government must protect the safety and security of its
 Solis 2

citizens. The US Department of Transportation in their Automated Vehicles 3.0 report lists, "We

will prioritize safety." as the first principle for shaping policy for self-driving cars(2018). The

government makes a claim of value by prioritizing people's safety. This appears to create a

fallacy of ambiguity as to whose safety is prioritized, the passengers, cyclists, or pedestrians.

What is at stake for the government? The lives of its citizens and this new innovative technology

which stands to revolutionize the transportation industry.

Alternatively, should self-driving car companies be the ones to set the ethical standards

for their products? These companies will choose to protect the driver and passengers. Christoph

von Hugo, the manager of driving assistance systems at Mercedes Benz, was quoted in an

interview with Car and Driver. He explained that in the complex situations that will be

self-driving car accidents, "you save the ones you know you can" by which he meant the

passengers (Taylor 2016). Hugo makes a claim of policy, that self-driving cars should prioritize

saving their passengers because it cannot guarantee the safety of someone outside the car. Hugo's

claim appears to be a black-and-white fallacy. There exists the option of not putting someone

outside the car in danger to save the life of the passenger. However, self-driving car companies

have their entire reputation riding on the safety of their vehicles.

Although not many governments have established laws on how selfing-driving cars

should respond in life-and-death situations, by looking at established law and preceding

automotive laws, we can infer that it will be a utilitarian approach. Utilitarianism falls in the

group of Consequentialist ethical theories. This group factors which actions are deemed right or

wrong based on their consequences and how much good or bad they ultimately do. Classical

utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham and further refined by his follower John Stuart
 Solis 3

Mill. Bentham’s classical utilitarianism was influenced by hedonism which attributed good with

what brings pleasure. Bentham developed utilitarianism as a solution to the corrupt laws of his

time, which did not lead to the suffering of many(Driver, 2014). The major principle of

utilitarianism states a moral choice is one that leads to the most good, or happiness, or least

harm, and is impartial even against the moral agent.

The German government is one of the few that has started establishing laws for how

self-driving cars should respond to life-and-death situations. They have decided that if an

accident is unavoidable the self-driving car “must choose whichever action must hurt people the

least,” in other words to cause the least harm (Sheahan, 2017). Although, we may believe that the

US government would act in an egalitarian way given our country's emphasis on individual

rights. We need only to look at our automotive airbag laws, which are utilitarian. Airbags are not

completely safe, in fact, they can cause bodily injury and even death in some cases, particularly

to children.

The US government by law requires frontal airbags to be installed in all passenger cars

and trucks (Air Bags, 2019). Ultimately requiring frontal airbags in cars has saved countless lives

and is regarded as a good decision. People also trend toward utilitarianism according to the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). Surveys show that 76% of those polled

prefer utilitarian programmed self-driving cars (Ackerman, 2016). Objectively it makes sense to

do as little harm as possible in an unavoidable accident. Utilitarian self-driving cars will not only

reduce the number of deaths but also reduces the economic cost of automobile accidents. The

government has a difficult task trying to protect its citizens, while at the same time not
 Solis 4

over-regulating and negatively affecting the self-driving car industry. Eventually, governments

will have to establish laws and will choose to do the least harm.

On the other hand, self-driving car companies have responsibilities to their shareholders

and customers. Which is why they choose ethical Egoism, to protect their passengers. Ethical

Egoism was created by Henry Sidgwick as a variation of utilitarianism (Kraut, 1998). Ethical

Egoism also has roots in Hedonism, as it attempts to maximize pleasure for the moral agent. In

ethical egoism, moral agents act only out of self-interest, without the consideration of other

stakeholders. Luckily for their customers, it is in the company's best interest to ensure the safety

of their passengers. To self-driving car companies, this approach allows them to maximize

profits, as the IEEE found people are less likely to buy utilitarian self-driving cars (Ackerman,

2016). Thus meeting a corporation's responsibility to its shareholders.

Safety is, in fact, self-driving car companies' greatest concern, but not for altruistic

reasons as they would have us believe. The viability of their product depends on the public

perception of self-driving cars. The safer their product is, the larger their market share will be

when these cars are sold to the public. Mercedes Benz is the only company to come forward and

take a stance on this controversial issue. They argue that because the self-driving car would have

no control over what could happen to someone outside of their vehicle, their priority will be to

protect the passengers (Taylor, 2016). This claim makes sense if we take into account decades of

automotive safety improvements have been focused on passenger safety. If self-driving cars

aren’t programmed to protect the passengers, it could radically reduce the rate of adoption of

self-driving cars.
 Solis 5

Utilitarian self-driving would be the fairest and lead to the most lives saved but there is

something to be said about simply not endangering others unnecessarily. Think of the

implications for motorcyclists if utilitarian self-driving cars were the norm. What everyone needs

to remember is that there has always been an inherent risk in driving or being a passenger in an

automobile. Yet it doesn’t stop anyone from driving their cars to go to work and to take their

children to school. Another possibility is to allow self-driving car companies to continue the

industry norm and strive for greater passenger safety. After the wide adoption of self-driving

technology, it may be possible to transition to a utilitarian model enforced by the government.

The adoption of self-driving technology should be a priority as it will lead to safer roads.

There are also more ways to make self-driving cars safer by reducing outside of the cars

themselves. One road change that may be possible with the adoption of self-driving technology

is to reduce speeds. This would serve two important purposes, to give pedestrians easy of mind

and self-driving cars more time to maneuver and avoid accidents in an unexpected situation.

Which may even be possible without increasing traffic and commute times, because self-driving

cars will make roads more efficient. Another idea is to interconnect self-driving cars instead of

each being independent. This would allow all the cars to respond simultaneously and make room

for one another to prevent accidents. While not perfect, those are some possible ways to possibly

improve safety.

Like all ethical choices involving life-and-death, there is no clear cut answer. Consumers

need to feed confidence before they will embrace this new technology, no matter how

revolutionary it is. That confidence comes with knowledge and understanding. What people need

is transparency and information to allow them to make an educated decision. Whether the
 Solis 6

government imposes regulations or self-driving car companies are left to their own devices, the

technology will be implemented but the sooner this discussion happens the better. There is no

doubt that everyone can agree on the common goal of saving lives.
 Solis 7

References

Ackerman, E. (2016, June 23). People Want Driverless Cars with Utilitarian Ethics, Unless

They're a Passenger. Retrieved from

https://spectrum.ieee.org/cars-that-think/transportation/self-driving/people-want-driverles

s-cars-with-utilitarian-ethics-unless-theyre-a-passenger.

Air Bags. (2019, May 8). Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment/air-bags.

Department of Transportation (2018, October 4) Preparing for the Future of Transportation:

Automated Vehicles 3.0. Retrieved from

https://www.transportation.gov/av/3/preparing-future-transportation-automated-vehicles-

Driver, J. (2014, September 22). The History of Utilitarianism. Retrieved from

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/#JerBen.

Kraut, R.(1998). Egoism and altruism. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor

and Francis. Retrieved 9 Oct. 2019, from

https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/egoism-and-altruism/v-1.

doi:10.4324/9780415249126-L126-1

Nowak, P. (2018, February 2). The ethical dilemmas of self-driving cars. Retrieved from

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/technology/the-ethical-dilemmas-

of-self-drivingcars/article37803470/

Road traffic injuries. (2018, December 7). Retrieved from

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries
 Solis 8

Sheahan, M. (2017, August 23). Germany draws up rules of the road for driverless cars.

Retrieved from

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-autonomous-germany/germany-draws-up-rules-

of-the-road-for-driverless-cars-idUSKCN1B31MT.

Taylor, M. (2016, October 7). Self-Driving Mercedes-Benzes Will Prioritize Occupant Safety

over Pedestrians. Retrieved from

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15344706/self-driving-mercedes-will-prioritize-occ

upant-safety-over-pedestrians/.