“The Trolley Problem” and its impact on our decision-taking, has first been established by Philippa Foot in 1967. In the dilemma she created, we are confronted with two options of action-taking. The death of one person only to save multiple other people, or the death of multiple people because one does not feel in the position to choose to kill the single person.
In order to create a discussion on this topic, I will elaborate how the dilemma is explained by Foot. Since utilitarianism plays a major role in this dilemma, as most people think this is the right way to act, I will briefly explain its idea and how I feel about it. At this point, I want to precise that I will not be going into the definitions of morality, as they would go beyond the scope of this paper. I will only go into the aspects of intending and foreseeing, which are important terms to distinguish in this discussion.
The main interest of this paper lies in applying what we learned about the “Trolley Problem” and the terms that the dilemma implies, in connection with modern technologies. I will do this, by considering some aspects brought by Patrick Lin in “The Ethics of Autonomous Cars”. How would a car act in a trolley case? Can it properly distinguish between intending and foreseeing, and at the same time protect its owner?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. “The Trolley Problem “
3. Utilitarianism
4. Intending vs. foreseeing
5. Applied ethics: Is artificial intelligence capable of good judgement?
5.i. Trolley Problem
5.ii. Whose life matters the most?
6. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Topics
This paper examines the classic "Trolley Problem" thought experiment to analyze the moral complexities inherent in decision-making, specifically when applied to the ethical programming of autonomous technologies and driverless cars.
- The moral distinction between intending and foreseeing death.
- Critique of utilitarianism as a sufficient framework for moral dilemmas.
- Ethical challenges in programming artificial intelligence for life-or-death scenarios.
- The conflict between prioritizing the owner's safety versus public welfare.
- The limitation of human moral logic when translated into machine algorithms.
Excerpts from the Book
“The Trolley Problem”
The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment, established to find a solution to a moral dilemma, one may be facing. Therefore, we are now considering two hypothetical cases that Philippa Foot incentivizes us to reflect on. I will firstly elaborate those cases, and in the following sections I will analyze the dilemma we are confronting.
The first hypothetical case is stated as such: I assume that I am the driver of a trolley. While I am driving the trolley, I encounter five track workers who have been repairing the track during their working hours. I am going through a valley which is a bit steep. But as soon as I notice those workers, I step on the brakes to make my trolley stop going. To my misfortune, I realize that my brakes are not working. However, I do notice that I have the option, to switch to a different track, as there is a track appearing to my right. Now, I notice that on the track to my right, there is another man working on the tracks. I realize that I am put in a dilemma, as I am confronted to either killing one man if I switch to the sidetrack or killing five men if I do not switch tracks.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the origin of the Trolley Problem by Philippa Foot and sets the goal of applying these ethical considerations to modern autonomous technology.
2. “The Trolley Problem “: Presents the two core hypothetical scenarios involving a trolley driver and a surgeon to highlight the emotional and ethical struggle of choice.
3. Utilitarianism: Explores the consequentialist approach to morality and argues why it fails to adequately address the personal nuances of these moral dilemmas.
4. Intending vs. foreseeing: Investigates the crucial distinction between intentionally causing death versus foreseeing it as a consequence of one's inaction.
5. Applied ethics: Is artificial intelligence capable of good judgement?: Analyzes how driverless cars might encounter these dilemmas and questions if machines can truly "decide" whose life matters more.
6. Conclusion: Synthesizes the findings, emphasizing that because human morality is complex and fallible, modern technology should not yet be responsible for such critical life-or-death decisions.
Keywords
Trolley Problem, Philippa Foot, Utilitarianism, Consequentialism, Intending, Foreseeing, Applied Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, Autonomous Cars, Moral Dilemma, Decision-making, Machine Ethics, Philosophy of Technology, Human Values, Accountability.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores the "Trolley Problem" and its application to modern technological developments, specifically the moral programming of autonomous or driverless cars.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
The key themes include the distinction between killing and letting die, the critique of utilitarian frameworks, and the ethical responsibilities of artificial intelligence in crisis situations.
What is the main research question of the study?
The author investigates whether machines can accurately replicate human moral judgment, specifically asking if a car can distinguish between intending or foreseeing consequences, and whether it is acceptable for an AI to prioritize its owner's life.
Which philosophical methodology is employed?
The paper utilizes analytical philosophical thought experiments, comparing the hypothetical scenarios proposed by Philippa Foot with the contemporary challenges posed by autonomous vehicle technology.
What is covered in the main section of the paper?
The main section dissects the "Trolley Problem," contrasts it with the surgeon scenario, evaluates utilitarianism, and finally applies these insights to scenarios involving driverless cars navigating pedestrian zones and accident prevention.
Which keywords best describe the paper?
Key terms include Trolley Problem, Utilitarianism, Intending vs. Foreseeing, Autonomous Cars, and Applied Ethics.
How does the paper differentiate between the trolley case and the surgeon case?
The author distinguishes between killing someone as a direct action and allowing someone to die as a foreseen consequence, noting that the surgeon case involves a choice to act or not, whereas the trolley driver often faces a choice between two negative outcomes.
What is the conclusion regarding artificial intelligence and the Trolley Problem?
The author concludes that because humans themselves cannot solve the Trolley Problem and often lack consistent moral logic, current technology should not be tasked with making such life-or-death decisions.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Sabrina Fiel Abade (Autor:in), 2021, "The Trolley Problem" and its impact on our decision-taking, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1168143
