PhilArchive
open access
Let Nature Take Its Course, or Forcibly Rewrite Fate — Why Autonomous Vehicles Should Not Choose Who Dies
This paper argues that the "trolley problem" framing in autonomous driving ethics is fundamentally misguided. The real issue is not whom the car should kill, but whether we have the right to program a machine to make that choice at all. Actively redirecting a lethal threat toward an uninvolved bystander constitutes an unjustifiable transfer of death, not a rescue. In unavoidable accidents, no one bears culpability—physics, not choice, determines the outcome. The real solution is preventing such dilemmas, not perfecting algorithms that decide whom to kill.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Ethical Accident Algorithms for Autonomous Vehicles and the Trolley Problem: Three Philosophical Disputes#110478
- Autonomous Vehicles and Ethical Settings: Who Should Decide?#724520
- No ethics settings for autonomous vehicles#702831
- Machine Law, Ethics, and Morality in the Age of Artificial Intelligence#964392
- Murderer at the Switch: Thomson, Kant, and the Trolley Problem#728215
Record · ID 204443
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive