Abstract
This chapter explores the propriety of incorporating crowdsourced public input when programming morally contentious decisions to be made by automated vehicles (AVs). The chapter argues that moral values are necessarily pluralistic and require diverse action plans based on mutual interpretability among moral agents within a particular (relative) perspective. Thus, for a machine to be understood as acting morally requires that it be interpreted as acting morally from within that perspective. This calls for programming context-dependent AV behaviors, rather than a uniform, ‘global’ standard. Using as a test case crowdsourced responses to the MIT Media Lab’s Moral Machine Experiment (MME), the chapter locates some potentially diverse and morally contentious AV behaviors, evaluates the relevance and feasibility of such crowdsourced responses, and explores some potential ways to incorporate these responses into public deliberations on moral AV behavior, including Value Sensitive Design and Participatory Technology Assessment. The diverse results of the MME, including identifiable pluralism among countries and regions, can serve as a useful preliminary input into these more comprehensive methods for understanding relevant moral contexts of AV behaviors.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The Western cluster includes North America and much of Europe. The Eastern cluster includes much of the “far east,” as well as the Islamic countries of Asia. The Southern cluster includes the Latin American countries of Central and South America, as well as France and French-influenced nations in North Africa (Awad et al., 2018).
References
Appiah, K. A. (2008). Experiments in ethics. Harvard University Press.
Awad, E. (2017). Moral machine: Perception of moral judgment made by machines [M.S. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology].
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018). The moral machine experiment. Nature, 563, 59–64.
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2020). Crowdsourcing moral machines. Communications of the ACM, 63(3), 48–55.
Durán, J., & Pirtle, Z. (2020). Epistemic standards for participatory technology assessment: Suggestions based upon well-ordered science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26(3), 1709–1741.
Gogoll, J., & Müller, J. F. (2017). Autonomous cars: In favor of a mandatory ethics setting. Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(3), 681–700.
Gold, N., Colman, A., & Pulford, B. D. (2014). Cultural differences in responses to real-life and hypothetical trolley problems. Judgment and Decision making, 9(1), 65–76.
Heinrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–135.
Himmelreich, J. (2018). Never mind the trolley: The ethics of autonomous vehicles in mundane situations. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21(3), 669–684.
Kain, P. J. (1990). Rousseau, the general will, and individual liberty. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 7, 315–334.
Lester, C. (2019, January 24). A study on driverless-car ethics offers a troubling look into our values. The New Yorker.
Luetge, C. (2017). The German ethics code for automated and connected driving. Philosophy and Technology, 30(4), 547–558.
Nature Video. (2018). Moral machines: How culture changes values. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPo6bby-Fcg
Rahwan, I. (2018). Society-in-the-loop: Programming the algorithmic social contract. Ethics and Information Technology, 20(1), 5–14.
Robbins, S. (2019). A misdirected principle with a catch: Explicability for AI. Minds and Machines, 29(4), 495–514.
Umbrello, S., & van de Poel, I. (2021). Map** value sensitive design onto AI for social good principles. AI and Ethics, 1(3), 283–296.
Umbrello, S., & Yampolskiy, R. V. (2022). Designing AI for explainability and verifiability: A value sensitive design approach to avoid artificial stupidity in autonomous vehicles. International Journal of Social Robotics, 14(2), 313–322.
Velleman, J. D. (2015). Foundations for moral relativism (2nd expanded ed.). Open Book.
Verbeek, P.-P. (2011). Moralizing technology: Understanding and designing the morality of things. University of Chicago Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Firenze, P. (2023). Crowdsourcing a Moral Machine in a Pluralistic World. In: Fritzsche, A., Santa-María, A. (eds) Rethinking Technology and Engineering. Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25233-4_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25233-4_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-25232-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-25233-4
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)