Project Management - Ethical Analysis of Teslas Self-Driving Vehicles - Case Study Example

Project Management by Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Question 1: Ethical Analysis Introduction It is factual that technology development is happening in a swift way with latest advances prompting concerns, especially ethical concerns, over their use or misuse. The advent of driverless cars and the potential concerns about having road travel with less or no human control raises many ethical issues based on existing ethical principles or views like deontology, justice ethics, and virtue ethics among others (MIT Technology Review 2015). The ethics behind the use of such technology can be open to debate as demonstrated in this assessment paper that focuses on the ethical analysis of Tesla’s self-driving vehicles’ case study. Part A: Three ethical Issues The situation as described in the article raises three ethical issues. The first ethical subject is if driverless cars have an ethical obligation to prevent bad crashes from happening without sacrificing anything important. The second ethical issue is the responsibility of the human driver in the driverless car that seeks to control its actions (Lin 2017). The driver in the car has an ethical obligation to prevent accidents and overrule the decisions of the vehicle’s system with the aim of causing the most minimal destructions and deaths. The third ethical issue that arises from the situation is if the driverless car manufacturers like Tesla should shift the full responsibility of accidents to either their AI driver or the human driver that gives instructions to the car’s computer or seek to override the decisions by the system’s software (Lin 2017). These three issues are ethical concerns demonstrated by different stakeholders in the article. For instance, the authorities in different countries like the United States are concerned about the high road accident fatalities every year; some fueled by psychopathic human drivers or human errors during road travels among other issues. However, the advent of these driverless cars does not offer complete solutions from human errors because these cars are programmed to work using particular algorithms. They make decisions based on their sensors and installed commands and principles by their manufacturers. These cars can prevent bad crashes that may occur due to human errors as demonstrated in the case study but have no capacity to prevent intentional crashes when commanded by their human drivers or programmed in a certain way by their manufacturers (MIT Technology Review 2015). Further, one would argue that by being programmed to retake control in such situations so that it can cause minimal destruction, the manufacturers are ethical in their approach since they are trading a big crash for a smaller one and reducing the potential harm. The second ethical issue is important since one would ask if it is the manufacturer that would take the responsibility for the accident, the AI system in the car or the human driver (Lin 2015). While it is logical that the human driver in the car has moral and legal responsibilities to prevent an accident, the driverless car takes away that duty and places it on its system and inevitably the automaker. However, Tesla’s decision to deactivate the automatic emergency braking (AEB) system when a human driver presses the accelerator pedal is an attempt to exonerate its technology from taking that responsibility and shifting it to the human driver. The company has programmed its AEB system to deactivate if it gets instructions from the human driver even if it senses potential harm or danger ahead, like collision with pedestrians, walls or any other objects. The essence of these cars is to take humans out of the equation since we cannot make effective driving decisions. However, the manufacturers of these technologies are so fast to exonerate their systems in case of such an occurrence through the programming of their software (Lin 2017b). It is on this premise that the importance of the third ethical issue arises; if the human driver in the car has responsibility or not. Imperatively, the case creates a mismatch when it comes to the ethical question of apportioning safety responsibility as the companies attempt to provide self-driving cars but also ensuring that these vehicles cannot intervene in collisions that the human driver may actively be creating. Therefore, the ethical question; what ethical principles are the critical stakeholders pursuing by developing and accepting such technologies? Part B: Stakeholders The main stakeholders from the three ethical issues above include the driverless car manufacturers, the human drivers in the cars, and the general public that consists of government agencies like the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and potential road users and property (Lin 2017). The self-driving car manufacturers believe that they have a duty to offer safer vehicles that have low rates of emission. However, they believe that their vehicles and their installed programmes should not bear responsibility from actions taken by their occupants. For instance, the decision by Tesla to have its AEB system deactivate if a human action defies its program’s protocol is a demonstration that these manufacturers are concerned with legal issues that may not compromise their ethical responsibilities (MIT Technology Review 2015). From their perspective, the human drivers in the self-driven vehicles feel that they should not be held accountable to such crashes if their cars can have the capability to prevent the accidents. However, they believe that they must have some level of control in case the car system or algorithms fail to recognise potential collision (Lin 2015). The third stakeholders; the public and authorities seek the general good and safety on roads and willing to support such technologies if their innovators are transparent about the design of their algorithms and software principles. Such a move will allow all stakeholders to understand the potential risks and limits of new technologies in road safety (Lin 2017b). These government agencies like NHTSA want automakers to provide safety assessment letters that comprise of ethical considerations put into practice to protect both the driver and other road users. Further, such ethical considerations must assess these technologies safety decisions, for instance, if it is safe to crash into a wall yet passengers are on board in attempting to prevent an eminent collision on the road. Part C: Ethical Views of Stakeholders From an ethical perspective, the automakers believe that it would be better to foresee death than to intend to cause death as demonstrated by the trolley’s problem. Therefore, the automakers prescribe to consequenntialism where they determine if actions of their self-drive cars are right or wrong based on the assessment of the consequences that such actions will have on people (Lecture 2 n.d). In this instance, it would be better for the AEB system to override human decision and swerve so that it kills one person than the intended decision by the human driver to ram into five people and kill them(Lin 2017). The automakers observe utilitarian perspective where they believe that the greatest good so be the one that goes to the greatest number, in this case, killing one person but saving the lives of five people (Lecture 2 n.d). The second group of stakeholders is the human drivers in these self-drive vehicles. The human drivers act based on their character traits when faced with a duty to act. As demonstrated in the case, the human drivers’ actions may be limited by the actions of the self-driving cars’ programmed protocols, for instance, when responding to weird and no-win emergencies. Therefore, the actions of any driver would be based on deontology where the right or wrong action is dependent on the need to fulfill a duty and independent of the outcomes (Lecture 2 n.d). For example, these autonomous vehicles may be good with the set legal provisions while on the road. However, human drivers sometimes are compelled to act illegally because of their good judgment. These judgments are independent of the legal consequences that they may face, for instance, stopping an autonomous car from crashing into somebody’s house just because it saw a pedestrian and was avoiding a potential collision (Lin 2017b). The third group of stakeholders, the general public and government agencies pursue justice ethics with a duty to treat all parties in a fair manner and have any potential risks and benefits equitably distributed. For instance, national road safety agencies in developed countries are acting in public interest by asking the autonomous car manufacturers to provide safety assessment letters with a view of ensuring that software developed considers ethical issues when executing their actions (Lecture 2 n.d). These agencies are pushing the automakers to be transparent about their design principles so that people can have a better understanding of the risks and limits brought by the new technologies. These cars are becoming common with the ability to save lives, reduce emissions, and keep other promises that they have made. However, the public needs to know their safety capability, especially how they can integrate with human actions in strange emergency situations. Part D: Own Assessment The three issues outlined here raise the need for ethical consideration based on the ethical principles presented by different perspectives. The first issue on the potential of the cars and their manufacturers to prevent bad crashes without huge impacts fits with the utilitarian ethical perspective (Lecture 2 n.d). I believe that the actors in the industry would rather have their cars foresee the death of one person that intend to kill five people. They believe that their software does not have an ethical responsibility when such events happen yet they are advertised on the premise of offering safety and reducing human errors on the roads (Simon 2017). The second issue is concerned with ethical decisions and responsibilities of the driver in overruling the decisions of the self-driving car in case of an emergency (Lin 2017). The driver’s need to control the steering wheel may be informed by an impending harm and based on their judgment. However, their actions must be founded on the best interest of others and a single truth- safety of all road users. They must be guided by universalism or absolutism in their perspectives when judging what is right or wrong (Cline 2017). The third issue of shifting responsibility brings into focus the role of government authorities and how they want such technologies to work. It follows that whether the manufacturers are ready to take blame or blame the human driver for such errors is a subject of public interest that must be handled by authorities. These agencies seek safety of passengers and other road users with a view of reducing fatalities. Therefore, their actions are driven by justice ethics. I believe that the issue requires government agencies to treat all involved equally for the overall public good (Krumins 2017). Consequently, in my ethical judgment, the third stakeholder is most likely to be “right” because they act for the benefit of all players, right from the autonomous car makers, the human drivers and passengers in these cars, and other road users and property owners. The third stakeholders want manufacturers not only to consider legal but also ethical components of their technologies. Q2: Researching International Codes of Ethics a) The ethics and code of conduct for the Australian Computer Society (ACS), the British Computer Society (BCS)and the Association of Computer Machinery (ACM) would render similar evaluations concerning the ethics of using automated vehicles and the control systems governing them. Firstly, Australian Computer Society’s code is founded on six principles with ICT professionals expected to adhere to the public interest, enhancing quality of life and being honest (ACS, 1997 & Aynsley, 2015). Therefore, ACS would regard autonomous vehicles’ system as not founded on public interest and lacking honesty. Secondly, the British Computer Society places public interest at the expense of private life and calls on IT professionals to have regard for the legitimate rights of third parties (BCS, 2017). Therefore, if the autonomous car technology does not guarantee public interest, any ICT professional developing such technologies breaches its code of ethics. Thirdly, the Association of Computer Machinery would view the automated technology as a violation of the requirement for its members not to cause harm since when these cars cause harm, the coder and code must be held accountable (ACM, 1992). b) The three ethical codes of conduct have a number of similarities than differences. Their difference exists because of the jurisdictions of their application with both ACS and BCS governing their domestic IT professionals. However, the Association of Computer Machinery (ACM) covers IT professionals around the world. The codes of conduct are similar in that they all emphasise the need for these professionals to focus on public interest, enhance the quality of life and observe honesty. Further, the codes of conduct agree that all IT professionals should have respect for privacy of others and avoid any potential harm. In addition, they agree that IT professionals should be competent in their areas of specialisation and respect authorities in all their jurisdictions. The professionals should have integrity in their conduct and when undertaking any projects. Conclusion While autonomous cars promise to offer safety, reduce human errors and emissions among other promises, the manufacturers must be willing to demonstrate that their principles value ethical issues as opposed to only meeting the legal provisions. Conclusively, the self-driving crash dilemma is more than just a trolley problem but one that requires an in-depth ethical analysis with a view of addressing the ever-increasing ethical debate about their software and algorithms. References Association for Computing Society, 1992. “ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct” Accessed from https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct Australian Computer Society, 1997. “Code of Ethics” Accessed from http://courses.cs.vt.edu/professionalism/WorldCodes/Australia.Code.html Aynsley, B. (2015). “Ethics essential for ICT professionals” Accessed from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/technology/opinion/ethics-essential-for-ict-professionals/news-story/78307af0586683a61e7a0d537c5f6cf8 British Computer Society, 2017. “BCS Code of Conduct” Accessed from http://www.bcs.org/category/6030 Cline, A., 2017, July 16. “Three Types of Ethical Systems” Accessed from https://www.thoughtco.com/atheism-types-of-ethical-systems-4058406 Krumins, A., 2017, July 19. “Self-Driving Cars Pose Thorny Ethical Questions in AI”. Accessed from https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/252645-ai-thorny-ethical-dilemmas-lurking-behind-self-driving-cars Lecture 2, Project Management and the Professional, PPT Lin, P., 2103. “The Ethics of Autonomous Cars” Accessed from https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/10/the-ethics-of-autonomous-cars/280360/ Lin, P., 2017, April 5. “Here’s How Tesla Solves A Self-Driving Crash Dilemma”. Accessed from https://www.forbes.com/sites/patricklin/2017/04/05/heres-how-tesla-solves-a-self-driving-crash-dilemma/#2db3d7068139 Lin, P., 2017b, April 3. “Robot Cars And Fake Ethical Dilemmas”. Accessed from https://www.forbes.com/sites/patricklin/2017/04/03/robot-cars-and-fake-ethical-dilemmas/#3795d35013a2 MIT Technology Review, 2015, October 22. “Why Self-Driving Cars Must Be Programmed to Kill”. Accessed from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/542626/why-self-driving-cars-must-be-programmed-to-kill/ Simon, M., 2017, March 13. “To Make Us All Safer, Robocars Will Sometimes Have to Kill”. Accessed from https://www.wired.com/2017/03/make-us-safer-robocars-will-sometimes-kill/ Read More