Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization

It is ethically debatable whether autonomous systems should be programmed to actively impose harm on some to avoid greater harm for others. Surveys on ethical dilemmas in self-driving cars’ programming have shown that people favor imposing harm on some people to save others from suffering and are co...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Anja Bodenschatz, Matthias Uhl, Gari Walkowitz
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	Randomization attitudes Ethical dilemmas Autonomous systems Machine ethics Utilitarianism Electronic computers. Computer science QA75.5-76.95 Psychology BF1-990
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/aa0bbcfaf24a416ebca86c88ae395d90
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:aa0bbcfaf24a416ebca86c88ae395d90
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:aa0bbcfaf24a416ebca86c88ae395d902021-12-01T05:04:58ZAutonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization2451-958810.1016/j.chbr.2021.100145https://doaj.org/article/aa0bbcfaf24a416ebca86c88ae395d902021-08-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2451958821000932https://doaj.org/toc/2451-9588It is ethically debatable whether autonomous systems should be programmed to actively impose harm on some to avoid greater harm for others. Surveys on ethical dilemmas in self-driving cars’ programming have shown that people favor imposing harm on some people to save others from suffering and are consequently willing to sacrifice smaller groups to save larger ones in unavoidable accident situations. This is, if people are forced to directly impose harm. Contrary to humans, autonomous systems feature a salient deontological alternative for immediate decisions: the ability to randomize decisions over dilemmatic outcomes. To be applicable in democracies, randomization must correspond to people's moral intuition. In three studies (N = 935), we present empirical evidence that many people prefer to randomize between dilemmatic outcomes due to moral considerations. We find these preferences in hypothetical and incentivized decision-making situations. We also find that preferences are robust in different contexts and persist across Germany, with its Kantian cultural tradition, and the US, with its utilitarian cultural tradition.Anja BodenschatzMatthias UhlGari WalkowitzElsevierarticleRandomization attitudesEthical dilemmasAutonomous systemsMachine ethicsUtilitarianismElectronic computers. Computer scienceQA75.5-76.95PsychologyBF1-990ENComputers in Human Behavior Reports, Vol 4, Iss , Pp 100145- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Randomization attitudes Ethical dilemmas Autonomous systems Machine ethics Utilitarianism Electronic computers. Computer science QA75.5-76.95 Psychology BF1-990
spellingShingle	Randomization attitudes Ethical dilemmas Autonomous systems Machine ethics Utilitarianism Electronic computers. Computer science QA75.5-76.95 Psychology BF1-990 Anja Bodenschatz Matthias Uhl Gari Walkowitz Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization
description	It is ethically debatable whether autonomous systems should be programmed to actively impose harm on some to avoid greater harm for others. Surveys on ethical dilemmas in self-driving cars’ programming have shown that people favor imposing harm on some people to save others from suffering and are consequently willing to sacrifice smaller groups to save larger ones in unavoidable accident situations. This is, if people are forced to directly impose harm. Contrary to humans, autonomous systems feature a salient deontological alternative for immediate decisions: the ability to randomize decisions over dilemmatic outcomes. To be applicable in democracies, randomization must correspond to people's moral intuition. In three studies (N = 935), we present empirical evidence that many people prefer to randomize between dilemmatic outcomes due to moral considerations. We find these preferences in hypothetical and incentivized decision-making situations. We also find that preferences are robust in different contexts and persist across Germany, with its Kantian cultural tradition, and the US, with its utilitarian cultural tradition.
format	article
author	Anja Bodenschatz Matthias Uhl Gari Walkowitz
author_facet	Anja Bodenschatz Matthias Uhl Gari Walkowitz
author_sort	Anja Bodenschatz
title	Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization
title_short	Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization
title_full	Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization
title_fullStr	Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization
title_full_unstemmed	Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization
title_sort	autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: attitudes toward randomization
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/aa0bbcfaf24a416ebca86c88ae395d90
work_keys_str_mv	AT anjabodenschatz autonomoussystemsinethicaldilemmasattitudestowardrandomization AT matthiasuhl autonomoussystemsinethicaldilemmasattitudestowardrandomization AT gariwalkowitz autonomoussystemsinethicaldilemmasattitudestowardrandomization
_version_	1718405562970931200

Autonomous systems in ethical dilemmas: Attitudes toward randomization

Ejemplares similares