Should autonomous vehicles be programmed to make decisions that prioritize the lives of their passengers over pedestrians in unavoidable accident scenarios?
According to me portrayal of people as an object for sexual desire is also a crime. Sexual objectification is a neutral language. Treating a person as an object for one's own sexual gratification is a morally reprehensible act. Provocative content may elicit a sexual response. Adults watching provocRead more
According to me portrayal of people as an object for sexual desire is also a crime. Sexual objectification is a neutral language. Treating a person as an object for one’s own sexual gratification is a morally reprehensible act. Provocative content may elicit a sexual response. Adults watching provocative content loose their control over their sexual desire, as it increases their level of testosterone and estrogen. It also stimulates their brain, releasing neurotransmitters like dopamine, serotonin and oxytocin which can trigger sexual arousal and attachment. As a result, these adults develop a complexity of human sexuality and attraction towards others regardless of their gender. The perpetrators should be held accountable for their actions regardless of gender. The real problem is not just about what the perpetrators do, but also about how people label them. People tend to categorize things good or bad based on their own perspectives and that’s the real problem. If sexual objectification is a crime then people who tends to trigger it also a culprit. There are some people who believe that sexual objectification is acceptable between life partners, but it can still be harmful and perpetuate unhealthy dynamics. It is essential to understand that mutual respect, communication, consent, boundaries and emotional intelligence are crucial not only in a relationship but also among other people and objectification can undermine these values.
See less
![[Deleted User]](https://mainsanswerwriting.com/wp-content/plugins/WPQA/images/default-image.png "[Deleted User]"){kind=avatar}
Programmers should not program autonomous vehicles to prioritize the lives of their passengers over other pedestrians in inevitable accident situations. Why- -Ethical Concerns: Prioritizing passengers is morally wrong. It is creating a system in which some lives are devalued compared to others, whicRead more
Programmers should not program autonomous vehicles to prioritize the lives of their passengers over other pedestrians in inevitable accident situations. Why-
-Ethical Concerns: Prioritizing passengers is morally wrong. It is creating a system in which some lives are devalued compared to others, which is a terrible and unjust concept.
-Societal Impact: Such a system would undermine public trust in autonomous vehicles. People would not want to use them if they knew they might be sacrificed in an accident. This could severely hinder the development and adoption of this potentially life-saving technology.
-Legal Ramifications: Programming vehicles to prioritize passengers could have severe legal consequences for manufacturers and developers. It could lead to lawsuits and potentially criminal charges.
-Alternative Solutions: In the absence of passenger safety as the guiding principle, self-driving cars would be programmed to:
1. Reduce damage as much as possible.
2. Avoid collisions through state-of-the-art sensors and predictive models.
-In the event that an accident cannot be avoided, the car would attempt to minimize damage as much as it can, independent of the persons’ identity.
The goal is to make totally safe, self-sufficient automobiles for everyone, not just passengers.
See less