Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Taking ethics seriously in AV trajectory planning algorithms

Nature Machine Intelligence volume 5, pages 814–815 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

How can we incorporate ethical considerations into the software of autonomous vehicles (AVs)? In recent years, several approaches have been proposed to address this problem. Some of these draw on particular moral theories such as Kantian1, Rawlsian2 or utilitarian3 ethics. However, because none of these particular moral theories seems to live up to the complexity of the problems surrounding the ethics of AVs, recent proposals have been more pluralistic. They draw on a set of moral principles that are based on two or more traditions in moral philosophy. The prime example of this approach is a report by the high-level European Union Horizon Commission Expert Group4, which draws on eight moral principles including (Kantian) non-maleficence, (utilitarian) beneficence and (Rawlsian) justice. However, incorporating such pluralistic approaches into the software of AVs is complicated. Despite the complexity, the ethical aspects of this task should be taken seriously.

An ingenious proposal to guide the distribution of risks associated with AVs is to use a risk–cost function consisting of multiple ethical principles5,6. Although the pluralist turn in AV ethics seems justified, it is important to note the problems inherent in such pluralist approaches to ethics. It needs to be clear why a particular set of moral principles is chosen, what the content of these principles is and how they relate to one another — especially, how they interact in cases where they yield different results. These issues hint at a larger problem: AVs need to be in line with legal requirements, especially in the face of life-or-death situations for road users. These legal requirements for regulating moral dilemmas posed by AVs, however, are still far too indeterminate to guide the design of trajectory planning algorithms for AVs. We will discuss each of these issues in turn.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Thornton, S. M., Pan, S., Erlien, S. M. & Gerdes, J. C. Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. 18, 1429–1439 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Leben, D. Ethics Inf. Technol. 19, 107–115 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang, H., Huang, Y., Khajepour, A., Cao, D. & Lv, C. IEEE Tran. Veh. Technol. 69, 8164–8175 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. European Commission Expert Group. Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles https://go.nature.com/454xlPp (2020).

  5. Geisslinger, M., Poszler, F., Betz, J., Lütge, C. & Lienkamp, M. Philos. Technol. 34, 1033–1055 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Geisslinger, M., Poszler, F. & Lienkamp, M. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 137–144 (2023).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gert, B., Culver, C. M. & Clouser, K. D. Bioethics: A Systematic Approach (Oxford Univ. Press, 2006).

  8. Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).

  9. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (Belknap Press, 2005).

  10. Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A. & Rahwan, I. Science 352, 1573–1576 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research (project EMERGENCY-VRD) is funded by the Digitalization and Technology Research Center of the Bundeswehr (dtec.bw). dtec.bw is funded by the European Union–NextGenerationEU.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Bundeswehr Munich–Digitalization and Technology Research Center of the Bundeswehr (dtec.bw), Munich, Germany

    Lando Kirchmair & Norbert Paulo

  2. Institute of Philosophy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Norbert Paulo

Authors
  1. Lando Kirchmair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Norbert Paulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Lando Kirchmair or Norbert Paulo.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kirchmair, L., Paulo, N. Taking ethics seriously in AV trajectory planning algorithms. Nat Mach Intell 5, 814–815 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00706-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-023-00706-5

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing