I feel like I am doing good right now but I definitely could use another person for some help. I’d like to get another view point on my research. I feel like I have a good cause and effect with how cars computers can glitch causing a crash and how cars will be able to make ethical choices. I could use a little more help deepening my research.
David Hodges
Recent Comments
Authors
-
612119d
-
bluntwriting88
-
capched
-
cardinal7218
-
carsonwentz1186
-
cfriery
-
chavanillo
-
christianity19
-
clementine102
-
comicdub
-
compiistudent
-
corinnebuck1219
-
daphneblake25
-
davidbdale
-
dayzur
-
g903254
-
gabythefujoshi18
-
goldin92
-
gooferious
-
hailthegreat8
-
hazelnutlatte123
-
honeysucklelilac
-
icedcoffeeislife
-
imgoingswimming
-
iwantpopsicle
-
doorknob9
-
BabyGoat
-
jeffbezos123
-
jets1313
-
johnwick66
-
justheretopass
-
kobebryant32
-
l8tersk8ter
-
aquarela
-
metro111c
-
mhmokaysure
-
mrmba1
-
mysterylimbo
-
nina525
-
nousernamefound1
-
nyaj32
-
oaktree1234
-
pardonmyfrench13
-
person345
-
pomegranate4800
-
Jessicariccio
-
rosekyd
-
rowanrat
-
rowanstudent24
-
runnerd4
-
shadowswife
-
SmilingDogTheProfWants
-
sonnypetro29
-
tcarter101
-
thecommoncase
-
wafflesrgud22
-
wazoo1234
-
yourfavoriteanon
-
Put this into the Causal Argument and Username categories, please, sonnypetro.
LikeLike
Sonny, I’m glad you’re feeling confident, and I don’t want to deprive you of your confidence, but I do have to comment that you haven’t shared any academic sources in your White Paper. You’re depending on the opinions expressed in popular media sources which, for the most part, are conclusion drawn by others on the basis of primary work performed by others.
You haven’t expressed your Hypothesis yet as a declarative claim.
That question form of a hypothesis concerns your professor, who has no interest in a 3000-word essay that poses ethical questions and doesn’t answer them. If you said something as simple as “Self-driving cars will violate the wishes of their occupants when faced with imminent crashes,” I’d be much more comfortable.
An alternative might be: “When self-driving cars are outfitted with software that determines how they’ll react to imminent crashes, owners will want—and eventually will be permitted to elect—different levels of self-preservation . . . .” Etc.
Some drivers faced with the choice of swerving to avoid hitting a dog will do so even if the car hits a light pole as a result. Others would slam on the brakes instead and harm the dog to avoid the pole. No one will want to give the car that choice. Correct? Won’t that mean car buyers will be given influence over the algorithms their cars respond to?
Your topic is ethical, and you’ll need to explore some academic ethical sources that address these central questions.
LikeLike
Thank you for the feedback, I am currently working to re shape my hypothesis I can see how that one is not the most interesting and I know I need to re work it. I really like the one you said “ Self-driving cars will violate the wishes of their occupants when faced with imminent crashes” I think that is where I see myself writing at the moment, I am currently writing my casual argument about being faced with imminent crashes and what you would want the car to do in that situation, I’d like to write about when buying the car will the car be responsible for any crash will it’s self driving or will the car owner be responsible for the accident something along those lines, I could use a little bit of help with my casual argument I think I am on the right track with it but I don’t want to complete it and have it be completely wrong. Thanks !
LikeLike
I’m glad to have nudged you in the right direction, Sonny. I thought I was providing you guidance for a causal (not casual) argument as well. As I see the sequence:
1. Self-driving cars will be guided by software that makes ethical choices when a crash is imminent. They will choose to a) limit damage to the car, or b) limit damage to the occupants, or c) limit damage to other vehicles, or d) limit damage to non-vehicular objects, or e) limit damage to pedestrians or animals NOT in vehicles.
2. Those variables will be weighted to meet SOMEBODY’S idea of the ideal response to an imminent crash.
3. The “driver” will have SOME responsibility to give the vehicle directions before the trip begins regarding the speed limit, the sort of roads to take or avoid, perhaps other variables.
4. Maybe (or maybe NOT) the driver will bear NO responsibility for crashes that occur on the logic that she was not actually IN CHARGE of the choices made by the car.
5. Insurance claims will be complicated by this new reality. Who’s liable for an accident? What CAUSED the accident? The “driver”? The car? An act of God?
6. Many drivers will want to retain some control over the “choices” their cars make. “A goose can die if it keeps me from driving my car into a bridge abutment,” for example.
7. Once we open THAT door, drivers will once again become responsible for the “choice the car makes” because they’ll have influenced the parameters on which decisions are made.
It’s complicated, right? That little outline is fully packed with causes and effects. I hope you find it helpful.
LikeLike