IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2017 - 68

of self-driving cars, including by applying the "Moral
Responsibility for Computing Artifacts: The Rules," a
framework developed by an ad hoc interdisciplinary
group of computing professionals, engineers, and ethicists [9]. While engineers and engineering managers are
not necessarily "crazed," we argue that ethical analysis
needs to be integral to the design of self-driving vehicles.
Engineering and other relevant communities need to
engage with the issue of what it means to uphold one's
ethical and professional responsibilities in the era of
these vehicles. Designers of the technology should diligently and creatively exercise their moral sensitivity
capacities in order to uphold their obligations to the public. Integrating this activity into their decision-making process is a critical element in the realm of "anticipatory
technology ethics" as defined by Brey [10] and in the
realm of "responsible research and innovation" as
described by Sutcliffe [11].
Brey's anticipatory technology ethics requires diligence in terms of forecasting consequences; cross-referencing a technology's description with moral values and
principles; and evaluating and elaborating on the ethical
issues identified [10]. Sutcliffe contends that responsible
research and innovation includes an emphasis on the
involvement of society throughout a technology's development; paying close attention to ethical and environmental impacts; effective oversight mechanisms; and
openness and transparency. [11] As we shall see, selfdriving cars bring all of these aspects into sharp focus.

Scope of Use and Potential
Benefits of Self-Driving Cars
Self-driving cars are starting to make their way onto the
roads in the United States and in other countries. Many
automobile manufacturers, including Mercedes-Benz,
General Motors, Toyota, and Tesla have a keen interest
in creating these cars. It is interesting to note that Silicon Valley companies, including Google, Apple, and
Uber, are seeking to become key players in this market
even though their history is not directly tied to the production of cars [12]. According to Edward Taylor, by
2025 projected global sales of "semi-automated" cars
is approximately 22.7 million, whereas for "highly automated" cars it is 9 million [13]. At the present time,
driving responsibilities within a self-driving car are normally shared between a human being and a computing
system. The degree to which this hybrid design cedes
control to a human versus an automated system varies
greatly depending on the company that created the car.
The touted benefits of such cars include improved
safety, in part because they could remedy problems
associated with distracted driving and other human driver errors. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration suggests the "critical reason" that accidents

occur is attributable to the driver approximately 94% of
the time [14]. The Association for Safe International Road
Travel claims that "[n]early 1.3 million people die in road
crashes each year" and "[a]n additional 20-50 million
are injured or disabled" due to such crashes [15].
According to computer scientist Moshe Vardi, "So by
automating driving, we could save about a million lives a
year" [16]. Along related lines, advocates of self-driving
cars suggest that the accidents involving them are normally the fault of human drivers and not the technology
[17]. Allegedly, these cars could also increase fuel economy, decrease traffic congestion, and may ease parkingrelated problems [18]. Furthermore, the technology may
grant more mobility to those who are currently unable to
drive, including those with disabilities [19].
The U.S. government has indicated its intent to support self-driving cars. In January 2016, the Obama
Administration announced that in the FY 17 budget, it
would request a $4 billion investment over ten years for
technology R&D and infrastructure improvements related to self-driving cars [20].

Our Focus
Much of the discussion at the intersection of ethics and
self-driving cars has to date focused on high-level ethical
dilemmas that might be encountered by a self-driving
car, such as the trolley problem [5], [21]-[22]. While these
dilemmas are important, many other, subtler ethical
issues relating to self-driving cars demand the attention
of engineering, engineering ethics, and other related
communities. Discussion has also tended to focus on
the role of programmers or "coders" in dealing with ethical dilemmas and self-driving cars [23]. While the line
between a "designer" and a "coder" is not always sharp,
we offer the following distinction:
■ Designer - has a say in determining design pathways (e.g., whether the system will rely on user
input); responsible for higher level decisions.
■ Coder - largely tasked with implementing what the
designer specifies; responsible for lower level decisions.
Although not all automotive designers are engineers,
engineers are usually involved in the design, development, and testing of safety-critical systems. We seek,
then, to discuss the ethical responsibilities of design
engineers (hardware and software) throughout the process of the design, development, and testing of selfdriving cars.

De George and the Pinto Case
The series of Ford Pintos built in the 1970s is a frequent
jumping off point for analyzing engineering decisionmaking and an engineer's ethical responsibilities. De
George provides a thorough examination of the Pinto

IEEE TEchnology and SocIETy MagazInE

∕

june 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - June 2017