Killer Robots Critique





Killer Robots Critique

The key problem identified in the article, Why Self-Driving Cars Must be Programmed to Kill, mainly involves the dilemma associated with algorithmic morality. In a situation involving an unforeseeable event, specifically an accident, autonomous vehicles are expected to respond in a manner that is more beneficial in respect to the driver or the pedestrian. Hence, based on this assertion, what approach should be considered or programmed first if such an event were to occur? Must the car lessen the loss of lives, even if it involves forfeiting the occupants, or must the car secure the lives of the occupants irrespective of all odds? Such questions summarize the ethical dilemma that self-driving vehicles are faced with about the article’s musings. Indeed, the respective issue is challenging. On one side, programming the cars to kill the occupants in favor of saving the pedestrians based on numbers may be deemed unethical. This is because the life of one person cannot be quantified or compared to another. After all, it is the right of every person to live. On the other hand, programming the vehicles so that occupants are protected ignores the risks posed on pedestrians about the occurrence of injuries and loss of life as well.

Grasping the horns: The author argues that the best approach regarding the controversy involves the employment of an approach that lessens the loss of life. Simply, it is far beneficial to risk the life of a single individual rather than endanger the lives of many people in the midst of accident. However, this condition fails to consider the violation imposed on human dignity via ignoring the individual’s right to live. In this respect, favoring the lives of other people such as the pedestrians over the life of a single occupant may succeed in lessening the impact. However, what about the occupant? Does his life not account for something? Furthermore, should the blame lie entirely on the occupant? After all, the car is autonomous. Such questions lessen the supposed rationality behind the article’s premise.

Charging the bull: The author presents a firm view on the dilemma encompassing the right approach to be issued by a self-driving car in the event of an accident. More specifically, in such a situation, the strategy should focus on lessening the impact of the collision by either sacrificing the life of the occupant or the life of the pedestrian. However, the situation does not necessarily have to be resigned to the respective approaches. The vehicles can be programmed to obey present traffic regulations. If that were the case, then it may be possible to protect both the occupant and the pedestrian from any accident involving self-driving cars.

Throwing sand: If the only option available involves the minimization of loss of life by sacrificing the occupants, then it may be strategic to argue for the need to reconsider the purchase of such vehicles in the first place. Even though autonomous vehicles are an illustration of the dynamic dispositions associated with technology, they are still flawed. In fact, in respect to the formulated problem, self-driving cars are indeed incapable of distinguishing the importance of the situation at hand. As such, accessibility to this form of artificial intelligence should be restricted first until other ends are gratified. This may involve the establishment of mechanisms on roads that facilitate autonomous transportation while supporting safety for both the occupant and the pedestrian.

Going between the horns: The focus on minimizing the loss of life should not be the only approach for self-driving cars in the event of an accident. Accordingly, manufacturers can install systems that instruct such vehicles to abide by traffic rules. In such instances, the focus may shift to prevention of accidents rather than just the loss of life.

In respect of my comrades, it is agreed that the exploration of other alternatives is a far better approach than concentrating specifically on choosing between which persons survive. Moreover, all members are in favor of making the ethical decision that is widely accepted by members of the community. Lastly, it is imperative to ensure that all issues of fully automatic cars have been addressed before being allowed to operate on public roads.


Calculate your order
275 words
Total price: $0.00

Top-quality papers guaranteed


100% original papers

We sell only unique pieces of writing completed according to your demands.


Confidential service

We use security encryption to keep your personal data protected.


Money-back guarantee

We can give your money back if something goes wrong with your order.

Enjoy the free features we offer to everyone

  1. Title page

    Get a free title page formatted according to the specifics of your particular style.

  2. Custom formatting

    Request us to use APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, or any other style for your essay.

  3. Bibliography page

    Don’t pay extra for a list of references that perfectly fits your academic needs.

  4. 24/7 support assistance

    Ask us a question anytime you need to—we don’t charge extra for supporting you!

Calculate how much your essay costs

Type of paper
Academic level
550 words

How to place an order

  • Choose the number of pages, your academic level, and deadline
  • Push the orange button
  • Give instructions for your paper
  • Pay with PayPal or a credit card
  • Track the progress of your order
  • Approve and enjoy your custom paper

Ask experts to write you a cheap essay of excellent quality

Place an order