Information Technology Ethics
Discuss about the Information Technology Ethics for Three Distinct Perspectives.
Information technology ethics is referred to a branch of ethics which provides ethical standards and moral codes regarding managing, collection and use of data (Floridi, 2013). With the popularity of the internet and online-based services, the role and significance of information ethics have grown. There are various incidents in which organisations face an ethical dilemma, and they are required to implement information ethics principles to address such situations ethically. In this report, the recent ethical dilemma faced by Uber and its ‘driverless car technology’ will be discussed by evaluation different news articles and relevant literature (Stewart, 2018). This report will evaluate the incident based on three distinct perspectives of applied ethics including professional, philosophical and sociological. Furthermore, various alternative solutions to the issue will be discussed, and the best solution will be selected.
The popularity of driverless car technology is growing as companies such as Google Waymo, Mercedes, BMW, and Audi invest in the technology to build their own autonomous vehicles. Similarly, Uber is testing driverless cars of its own, and it has invested over $1 billion in the technology. Recently, a test self-driving vehicle of Uber was involved in an accident in which it hit a pedestrian (Elaine Herzberg) on the road (Bomey, 2018). The accident happens in Arizona, and the pedestrian died right after the accident. This incident raised various security concerns regarding autonomous vehicle technology. After the incident, Uber shut down all its test vehicles in order to find out what the issue is and why the vehicle did not stop after seeing a pedestrian (Stewart, 2018). The key ethical dilemma, in this case, is who should be blamed for the accident.
- Popularity of autonomous vehicles is growing, and companies are competing with each other to capture the market.
- They are testing vehicles which are not capable enough to drive themselves on the roads.
- An autonomous vehicle of Uber was involved in an accident in which a pedestrian died (Berboucha, 2018).
- It is difficult to determine who should be blamed in this scenario.
- The corporations are launching prototype vehicles on the roads without testing their security which adversely affects people.
- Who should be blamed in this scenario because the accident happened due to the failure of artificial intelligence?
- Should companies be allowed to test their products in the real world which could have negative consequences?
- Uber
After the incident, Uber has to shut down all its test vehicles in order to ensure that they did not malfunction as well. The company was criticised by people that resulted in negatively affecting its profitability. A legal suit was filed against the company for its negligence (O’Kane, 2018).
- People
Many companies such as Tesla, Google Waymo, BMW, Mercedes and Audi are testing their vehicles on the road to improve the autonomous vehicle technology. Since all these vehicles are prototypes, they pose a threat to the people walking near the road. In case any of these vehicles malfunction, then it poses a considerable threat to the people (Hawkins, 2018).
- Government
After the incident, people criticised the United States government to not implementing appropriate policies regarding testing of autonomous vehicles. As the technology started to grow, the ethical issues associated with the technology will increase as well and the government has to implement policies to address such issues (Marshall, 2018).
- Elaine Herzberg
Recent Incident of Uber’s Driverless Car Technology
While walking down the road, Herzberg did not know that the self-driving car of Uber will hit her. She had lost her life due to the malfunctioning of a machine.
From a professional perspective, Uber is right at its place. In order to improve the accuracy of self-driving vehicles, it is necessary that they are driven in the real streets where they have to make decisions based on the situation. Furthermore, the company took appropriate measures to ensure that the self-driving vehicles are secured, however, the software can malfunction on its own which cannot be prevented (Bonnefon, Shariff & Rahwan, 2016). Moreover, the company should be fined because its prototype failed; however, ban on testing of all driverless vehicles is not a right solution to this ethical dilemma.
The Utilitarianism theory judges a situation’s morally based on its consequences rather than the rightness or wrongness of the action itself. In this case, the approval to allow testing self-driving cars pose a significant threat to people near the road, however, its consequences will enable companies to build driverless cars which are highly accurate and protect people from accidents (Hevelke & Nida-Rumelin, 2015). A significant number of people will be happy after improvement in self-driving vehicle technology, thus, it is ethical for corporations to test out these vehicles. The Deontology theory judges a situation based on the rightness or wrongness of the action rather than its consequences. Based on this theory, the action of Uber is wrong because it is risking people’s lives in order to improve its technology.
The sociological analysis evaluates a situation from different levels which include both micro-level analysis of small social patterns and macro level analysis of large social patterns. In case of small social patters, it is unethical for companies to risk to life of people in order to test the autonomous vehicle technology. On the other hand, the ‘big picture’ shows that it will be beneficial for the society if the driverless vehicle technology becomes highly accurate because it will reduce road accidents which benefit the whole society (Gerdes & Thornton, 2015). Thus, from a macro level analysis, it is ethical for corporations to test driverless technology since it will benefit the whole society.
There are various alternative suggestions in this situation. Firstly, various examples have shown that the autonomous vehicle technology is not safe yet for people, thus, the government should completely ban the testing of these vehicles in the real-life situation. Another alternative is that the government can impose strict regulations on companies to ensure that vehicles meet strict safety criteria before it is tested in real-world situations. Uber should call back all its vehicles to test them in artificial situations before driving them on roads.
- The government can cancel the testing of autonomous vehicles in the real world situations in order to protect the safety of
- The government can provide strict safety criteria for autonomous vehicles to ensure that cars pass a certain degree of test before testing them in real-world
- Uber should cancel the testing of its autonomous vehicles. Firstly, the company should test its vehicles in artificial situations before testing them in real-world situations to ensure that they are safe for the public.
Applied Ethics Perspectives
The second option is the best in this particular scenario. Stopping the development of a technology which has the potential to reduce the number of road accidents in the future is not correct. Furthermore, testing autonomous vehicles in artificial situations is not enough to make them competent to drive in real-world situations. Thus, the government should not restrict the testing of this technology; instead, it should implement strict safety criteria which limit the malfunctioning risk. The criteria should test the vehicles from different perspectives in order to ensure that they are safe to test out in the real world.
Conclusion
From the above observations, it can be concluded that there are various ethical issues associated with autonomous vehicle technology. The recent incident of Uber’s self-driving car crash is evaluated in the report to understand how this technology adversely affects people. Due to malfunctioning of the vehicle, a pedestrian was killed by the test driving vehicle of Uber. The key stakeholders, in this case, include Elaine Herzberg, the government, people and Uber. The ethical dilemma in the case is evaluated from three distinct perspectives of applied ethics which include professional, philosophical and sociological. Different alternative options are discussed in the report which can assist in addressing this ethical dilemma. The best option is that the government should provide strict safety criteria for testing out these vehicles before allowing them to test in real-world situations. This option will reduce the risk of road accidents and enable the autonomous vehicle technology to develop which will benefit the society as a whole.
References
Berboucha, M. (2018). Uber Self-Driving Car Crash: What Really Happened. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/meriameberboucha/2018/05/28/uber-self-driving-car-crash-what-really-happened/#ce94a104dc41
Bomey, N. (2018). Uber self-driving car crash: Vehicle detected Arizona pedestrian 6 seconds before accident. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/05/24/uber-self-driving-car-crash-ntsb-investigation/640123002/
Bonnefon, J. F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016). The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science, 352(6293), 1573-1576.
Floridi, L. (2013). The ethics of information. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gerdes, J. C., & Thornton, S. M. (2015). Implementable ethics for autonomous vehicles. Autonomes fahren, 87-102.
Hawkins, A.J. (2018). Uber self-driving car saw pedestrian but didn’t brake before fatal crash, feds say. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/24/17388696/uber-self-driving-crash-ntsb-report
Hevelke, A., & Nida-Rumelin, J. (2015). Responsibility for crashes of autonomous vehicles: an ethical analysis. Science and engineering ethics, 21(3), 619-630.
Marshall, A. (2018). The Uber Crash Won’t Be The Last Shocking Self-Driving Death. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-crash-explanation-lidar-sensors/
O’Kane, S. (2018). Uber reportedly thinks its self-driving car killed someone because it ‘decided’ not to swerve. Retrieved from https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/7/17327682/uber-self-driving-car-decision-kill-swerve
Stewart, J. (2018). For a much-needed win, self-driving cars should aim lower. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/story/uber-self-driving-crash-strategy/
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
