Against Leben’s Rawlsian collision algorithm for autonomous vehicles
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Rawlsian approach received criticism about inequitable distribution of risks.
“Nevertheless, this approach also received criticism about inequitable distribution of risks (Leben, 2017; Keeling, 2018).”
From Exploring moral algorithm preferences in autonomous vehicle dilemmas: an empirical study (2023) · cites this paper as Keeling, 2018
Cites
Theory of games and economic behavior
Garcia, S. R., & Miller, S. J. (2019) · American Mathematical Society eBooks · doi:10.1090/mbk/121/32 · Cited by 16,777 · see citing works
A Theory of Justice: Original Edition
Rawls, J. (1971) · doi:10.4159/9780674042605 · Cited by 9,496 · see citing works
Rawls, J. (1958) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/2182612 · Cited by 5,583 · see citing works
Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
N., E., von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1945) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2019327 · Cited by 4,042 · see citing works
Justice as Fairness: A Restatement
Metz, T., Rawls, J., & Kelly, E. I. (2002) · The Philosophical Review · doi:10.2307/1556442 · Cited by 3,586 · see citing works
Scanlon, T. (2000) · Harvard University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv134vmrn · Cited by 3,053 · see citing works
The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles
Bonnefon, J.-F., Shariff, A., & Rahwan, I. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaf2654 · Cited by 1,527 · see citing works
Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking
Harsanyi, J. C. (1953) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/257416 · Cited by 1,157 · see citing works
Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-Taking
Harsanyi, J. C. (1980) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-9327-9_1 · Cited by 703 · see citing works
Equity, Arrow's Conditions, and Rawls' Difference Principle
Hammond, P. J. (1976) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1913445 · Cited by 598 · see citing works
Comparing Harms: Headaches and Human Lives
Norcross, A. (1997) · Philosophy & Public Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.1997.tb00079.x · Cited by 323 · see citing works
Ethical Decision Making during Automated Vehicle Crashes
Goodall, N. J. (2014) · Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board · doi:10.3141/2424-07 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
Why Ethics Matters for Autonomous Cars
Lin, P. K. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48847-8_4 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Welfare inequalities and Rawlsian axiomatics
Sen, A. K. (1976) · Theory and Decision · doi:10.1007/bf00135080 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
Parfit, D. (2003) · Ratio · doi:10.1046/j.1467-9329.2003.00229.x · Cited by 156 · see citing works
A Rawlsian algorithm for autonomous vehicles
Leben, D. (2017) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9419-3 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Saving Lives, Moral Theory, and the Claims of Individuals
Otsuka, M. (2006) · Philosophy & Public Affairs · doi:10.1111/j.1088-4963.2006.00058.x · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Prioritarianism and the Separateness of Persons
Otsuka, M. (2012) · Utilitas · doi:10.1017/s0953820812000064 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Should the probabilities count?
Rasmussen, K. B. (2011) · Philosophical Studies · doi:10.1007/s11098-011-9698-1 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Legal Necessity, Pareto Efficiency & Justified Killing in Autonomous Vehicle Collisions
Keeling, G. (2018) · Ethical Theory and Moral Practice · doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9887-5 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Self-citationKeeling, G. (2017) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2017.00247 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Self-citationProbabilities in Tragic Choices
Rivera‐López, E. (2008) · Utilitas · doi:10.1017/s0953820808003178 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ethical issues in focus by the autonomous vehicles industry
Martinho, A. M., Herber, N., Kroesen, M., & Chorus, C. G. (2021) · Transport Reviews · doi:10.1080/01441647.2020.1862355 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Autonomous Driving Ethics: from Trolley Problem to Ethics of Risk
Geisslinger, M., Poszler, F., Betz, J., Lütge, C., & Lienkamp, M. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00449-4 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Why Trolley Problems Matter for the Ethics of Automated Vehicles
Keeling, G. (2019) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00096-1 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Self-citationThe ethics of crashes with self‐driving cars: A roadmap, I
Nyholm, S. (2018) · Philosophy Compass · doi:10.1111/phc3.12507 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Poszler, F., Geisslinger, M., Betz, J., & Lütge, C. (2023) · Technology in Society · doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2023.102350 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Safety requirements vs. crashing ethically: what matters most for policies on autonomous vehicles
Lundgren, B. (2020) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-020-00964-6 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Reconstructing AI Ethics Principles: Rawlsian Ethics of Artificial Intelligence
Westerstrand, S. (2024) · Science and Engineering Ethics · doi:10.1007/s11948-024-00507-y · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Four Perspectives on What Matters for the Ethics of Automated Vehicles
Keeling, G., Evans, K., Thornton, S. M., Mecacci, G., & de Sio, F. S. (2019) · Lecture notes in mobility · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22933-7_6 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Self-citationRawls’s Original Position and Algorithmic Fairness
Franke, U. (2021) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-021-00488-x · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Fairness in AI systems development: EU AI Act compliance and beyond
Westerstrand, S. (2025) · Information and Software Technology · doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107864 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Ethical Decision-Making in Older Drivers During Critical Driving Situations: An Online Experiment
Singh, A., Yahoodik, S., Murzello, Y., Petkac, S., Yamani, Y., & Samuel, S. (2024) · Journal of Intelligent and Connected Vehicles · doi:10.26599/jicv.2023.9210031 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Exploring moral algorithm preferences in autonomous vehicle dilemmas: an empirical study
Sui, T. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1229245 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“Nevertheless, this approach also received criticism about inequitable distribution of risks (Leben, 2017; Keeling, 2018).”
BackgroundMoral decision making: Explainable insights into the role of working memory in autonomous driving
Singh, A., Murzello, Y., Lee, H., Abdalla, S., & Samuel, S. (2024) · Machine Learning with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100599 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
The Ethics of Automated Vehicles
Keeling, G. (2020) · Bristol Research (University of Bristol) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.28316.10889 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Self-citationClassification of Moral Decision Making in Autonomous Driving: Efficacy of Boosting Procedures
Singh, A., Murzello, Y., Pokhrel, S., & Samuel, S. (2024) · Information · doi:10.3390/info15090562 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Ethics in the Driver's Seat: Unravelling the Ethical Dilemmas of AI in Autonomous Driving
Wani, A., Kumari, D., & Singh, J. (2024) · SAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · doi:10.4271/2024-01-2023 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Lim, A., & Pan, E. (2021) · Journal of Responsible Technology · doi:10.1016/j.jrt.2021.100011 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Unavoidable Collisions. The Automation of Moral Judgment
Fossa, F. (2023) · Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-22982-4_4 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Rawlsian Algorithmic Fairness and a Missing Aggregation Property of the Difference Principle
Franke, U. (2024) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-024-00779-z · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Moral Dilemmas in the A.I. Era: A New Approach
Sommaggio, P., & Marchiori, S. (2020) · Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) · doi:10.14658/pupj-jelt-2020-1-5 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Towards just democracies in the age of pervasive digital systems—a Rawlsian approach
Westerstrand, S. (2025) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-025-02503-7 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Fairness in AI Systems Development: Beyond EU AI Act Compliance
Westerstrand, S. (2025) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-85849-9_9 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Schäffner, V. (2024) · Verlag Karl Alber eBooks · doi:10.5771/9783495992043
- Authors
- Keeling, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Bristol (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Keeling, Geoff
- ORCID
- Keeling, Geoff
- Venue
- Studies in Applied Philosophy, Epistemology and Rational Ethics
- Publisher
- Springer International Publishing
- Published
- 2018
- Pages
- 259-272
- ISSN
- 2192-6255 (ISSN-L)
- 2192-6263
- OpenAlex
- W2888891992
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 23
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 44.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in applied philosophy, epistemology and rational ethics (publishedVersion)
- Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, collision algorithm, John Rawls, moral responsibility, moral status, AI ethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review