Utilitarianism and its Viewpoint
Thinkers and doers of the world are taking technology to new heights, and vehicles without human drivers are moving from the realm of science fiction to reality. Specifically, in Australia, plans are afoot to replace all human-driven trucks with computer operated self-sufficient transport system. The proponents claim better profits, efficiency, and growth of economy while the detractors claim loss of livelihood from a stable employment. The original source (Reynolds, 2016) is silent on the creation and sustenance of jobs in the advanced technology that replaces human drivers, but according to the author, raising this point is also essential for a fair discussion.
Utilitarianism deals with consequences, everything else is irrelevant (Nathanson). It wants the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Act Utilitarianism), or in a slightly milder form, following rules which in general result in the greatest good for the maximum number of individuals (Rule Utilitarianism).
Looking at the issue at hand from the lens of Utilitarianism theory is a simpler thought exercise, though not open-and-shut as the technology (hardware, software, etc) will increase demand for human workers, though in a different sector of the economy. Driving a truck requires skill and training which is lesser than developing a computer chip or coding artificial intelligence. Thus, one software developer who is employed to write software for the driverless trucks will be replacing more truck drivers.
Moving away from the trucks, during the travel human drivers need food, rest, and entertainment in their long stretches of driving sessions. To cater to this, a substantial roadside economy is working, and thus sustaining many people. These people too may have to go out of business in the near future of driverless trucks. However, in an Australia filled with automated trucks, the breakdowns and faults will have to be attended, and a large number of additional jobs may be created for maintenance crew.
Thus, this school of ethics is pitting a group of truck drivers and the people who cater to them on roadside (Autotech, 2018) against a group of skilled technologists and maintenance crew. In the opinion of author, since technology requires fewer humans and thus means relatively more unemployment, Utilitarianism votes against driverless trucks.
In Deontology, the guiding principles are set in stone (Encyclopaedia Britannica), and the application of the rules of this school of ethics do not allow for any concession or leeway on a per case basis. For this discussion, the author leans on the universalizability formula and the formula of humanity to judge the scenario and come to a recommendation.
Deontology and its Viewpoint
Beginning with the business owners in a capitalist nation, their only aim of establishing a company is to make profit (Bartlett, 2015) i.e. to earn more money than they put in the company whether to fund the long-term assets, or to run the company on a daily basis. This is their categorical imperative. The drivers’ aim is to serve their employers in the best way they can in return for the salary and any other perks as negotiated. This is their categorical imperative. To be clear, the truck business owner has no obligation to roadside business owners, or to the truck drivers other than the pay and perks agreed to.
Now, to further their aim of profit, a business owner is morally right under Deontology to do whatever it takes to increase sales or decrease costs. The issue being discussed helps in cutting costs, and thus is relevant. From the drivers’ point of view, their morality limits them to demand no more than the contract allows them to, and the furtherance of the contract is a mutual decision, not unilateral one.
However, the above discussion assumes drivers as a mere means, which goes against a yardstick of this theory. Also, the universalizability requirement of this ethical theory demands that the business owners will not raise their voice when something similar puts the owners out of business. Such an action seems unlikely. Thus, under this ethical theory, driverless trucks are rejected.
This theory of ethics focuses on human flourishing, always improving, doing the right thing, at the right time, with the right person. Further, it advocates a middle path (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), not unlike Buddha, which is neither extreme nor deficient.
Aligning itself with the Utilitarianism theory for the topic at hand, Virtue theory aims to be moderate or in other words aid human wellbeing. Virtue theory will go against actions that worsen the conditions of human beings. The companies that run truck business have a duty to look after the welfare of the company and its stakeholders, while the employees have a duty to look after their welfare, after they have served the company as per their mutual agreement. The issue being discussed is the replacing of human drivers with automated trucks that replace drivers with computers. On the other hand, such a move opens up jobs for people of a different skill-sets, for example, technologists and maintenance shops (Kucharczyk, 2017). That too is human welfare, same in value to the theory as not firing human drivers from their jobs. Now, considering the people employed in roadside businesses that cater to travelling drivers. Such businesses may have to close for lack of customers. A transport that saves money in the long run may choose to pass on the savings to customers, and this could result in cheaper products for everyone. Also, efficiency of the economy will increase when there are less delays in transporting products. All this is good for the whole nation of Australia.
Virtue Theory and its Viewpoint
Considering the implications of the move, the parties involved, the changes downstream at a larger scale, Virtue theory recommends the move to driverless trucks, even though the short-term consequences may be unpleasant for some, the grand total will be beneficial to everyone in Australia.
The fundamental premise of Contract ethical theory is that there are more benefits in cooperating than otherwise. To enable such a situation requires free, rational, and self-interested agents who choose to agree on such a give-and-take (McCombs School of Business), and agree to uphold their ends of the deal – nothing more nothing less.
The arguments here are similar to ones put forward for Deontology theory. A business owner has an implicit contract with himself, and to other stakeholders of the company (for example, public investors via stock exchange) to further the business and its profits. As mentioned earlier, this can be done by increasing sales, and cutting expenses. The owner is fulfilling this contract when he introduces new technology that helps in cutting costs e.g. driverless trucks. Regarding the roadside economy, the truck business owner has no contract with them whatsoever, so the businesses catering to travelling drivers does not arise under this theory’s discussion. Now, the purpose of a person who signs up or any employment is earning money. That money, earned in exchange of time and skill, is the employee’s property and he can spend it as he deems fit. Now, nowhere in this system is the employee given a right to direct the business’ strategy or tactic. In other words, the driver in the topic under discussion does not have the right to inform the company on its strategic or tactical vision.
Once these facts are put under the light of Contract theory, there is not much leeway left to tilt to any side. The recommendation of the theory becomes clear once the explicit and implicit contracts are laid bare. No contract is broken in the introduction of driverless trucks, but the drivers are breaking their contract in delaying, or cancelling the introduction of driverless trucks. Contract theory forbids any attempts from drivers to delay or stop driverless trucks, and recommends a free hand to the business to further their goals including driverless trucks.
Conclusion
After having analyzed the issue from four different ethical theories’ point of view, considering the consequences, and imagining the action in a broader long term view, the author of this paper votes for the replacement of the human drivers with automated computer systems, but in a phased manner. A gradual shift will allow the businesses and the fired drivers to find new employments. As per the roadside economy participants, they will have to adapt and can change their orientation towards private vehicles and other travelers on the road.
References
Autotech. (2018, January 26). 28 Industries Other Than Auto That Driverless Cars Could Turn Upside Down. Retrieved from CB Insights: https://www.cbinsights.com/research/13-industries-disrupted-driverless-cars/
Bartlett, B. (2015, May 15). Is The Only Purpose of a Corporation to Maximize Profit? Retrieved from The Big Picture: https://ritholtz.com/2015/05/corp-purpose-maximize-profit/
Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Deontological ethics. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/deontological-ethics
Kucharczyk, S. (2017, April 18). How will maintenance change with the autonomous vehicle? Retrieved from Read Write: https://readwrite.com/2017/04/18/maintenance-and-the-autonomous-vehicle-tl1/
McCombs School of Business. (n.d.). Social Contract Theory. Retrieved from McCombs School of Business: https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/social-contract-theory
Nathanson, S. (n.d.). Act and Rule Utilitarianism. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy : https://www.iep.utm.edu/util-a-r/
Reynolds, E. (2016, May 2). The jobs killer is coming: How driverless trucks could change Australia. Retrieved from News.com.au: https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/travel/the-jobs-killer-is-coming-how-driverless-trucks-could-change-australia/news-story/4f5b8a42b0452703d62e00f3e7644d7b
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (n.d.). Virtue Ethics. Retrieved from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
