From public preferences to ethical policy

Studies have provided rich data on global preferences for how autonomous vehicles should act in collisions. We describe a framework for incorporating such preferences in policy. Preferences should inform the design of autonomous vehicles only after being screened for bias and only to the degree to which they match major ethical theories.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: In our framework, data on public and expert intuitions form the first step of a deliberative process.
Fig. 2: Different ethical theories either endorse or reject public preferences for driverless cars to take number, age and sex into consideration in collisions.

References

  1. 1.

    Awad, E. et al. Nature 563, 59–64 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Kanellopoulou, N. SCRIPT-ed 1, 217–223 https://script-ed.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/1-1-Kanellopoulou.pdf (2004).

  3. 3.

    Sikora, J. & Lewins, F. Health Sociol. Rev. 16, 68–78 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Nordfalk, F., Olejaz, M., Jensen, A. M. B., Skovgaard, L. L. & Hoeyer, K. Transplant. Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13737-016-0035-2 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rawls, J. Philos. Rev. 60, 177–197 (1951).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Rawls, J. Oxf. J. Leg. Stud. 7, 1–25 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Luetge, C. Philos. Technol. 30, 547–558 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Arora, C., Savulescu, J., Maslen, H., Selgelid, M. & Wilkinson, D. BMC Med. Ethics 17, 69 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Dunn, M., Sheehan, M., Hope, T. & Parker, M. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics 21, 466–480 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

J.S. and C.G., through their involvement with the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, received funding through from the Victorian State Government through the Operational Infrastructure Support (OIS) Program. J.S. was supported by the Wellcome Trust (WT 104848/Z/14/Z) and (WT203132/Z/16/Z). All the funding bodies provided support for research on themes developed within this paper. The funders had no role in the conceptualization, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian Savulescu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Savulescu, J., Kahane, G. & Gyngell, C. From public preferences to ethical policy. Nat Hum Behav 3, 1241–1243 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0711-6

Download citation

Further reading

  • Experimental Philosophical Bioethics

    • Brian D. Earp
    • , Joanna Demaree-Cotton
    • , Michael Dunn
    • , Vilius Dranseika
    • , Jim A. C. Everett
    • , Adam Feltz
    • , Gail Geller
    • , Ivar R. Hannikainen
    • , Lynn A. Jansen
    • , Joshua Knobe
    • , Julia Kolak
    • , Stephen Latham
    • , Adam Lerner
    • , Joshua May
    • , Mark Mercurio
    • , Emilian Mihailov
    • , David Rodríguez-Arias
    • , Blanca Rodríguez López
    • , Julian Savulescu
    • , Mark Sheehan
    • , Nina Strohminger
    • , Jeremy Sugarman
    • , Kathryn Tabb
    •  & Kevin Tobia

    AJOB Empirical Bioethics (2020)