A Study of Common Principles for Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas for Autonomous Vehicles
Open accessAbstract
How decisions are made when autonomous vehicles (AVs) are faced with moral dilemmas is still a challenge. For this problem, this paper proposed the concept of common principles, which were drawn from the general public choice and could be generally accepted by society. This study established five moral dilemma scenarios with variables including the number of sacrifices, passenger status, presence of children, decision-making power subjects, and laws. Based on existing questionnaire data, we used gray correlation analysis to analyze the influence of the individual and psychological factors of participants in decision-making. Then, an independent sample t-test and analysis of covariance were selected to analyze the influence relationship between individual and psychological factors. Finally, by induction statistics of decision choices and related parameters of participants, we obtain common principles of autonomous vehicles, including the principle of protecting law-abiding people, the principle of protecting the majority, and the principle of protecting children. The principles have different priorities in different scenarios and can meet the complex changes in moral dilemmas. This study can alleviate the contradiction between utilitarianism and deontology, the conflict between public needs and individualized needs, and it can provide a code of conduct for ethical decision-making in future autonomous vehicles.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Kim, R., Schulz, J., Henrich, J., Shariff, A., Bonnefon, J.-F., & Rahwan, I. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0637-6 · Cited by 1,859 · see citing works
When AI ethics Goes astray: a case study of autonomous vehicles
Etienne, H. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439320906508 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Li, L., Zhang, J., Wang, S., & Zhou, Q.
- Affiliations
- Shandong University of Science and Technology (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Wang, Shufeng
- Venue
- Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-09-19
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 344
- ISSN
- 2076-328X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9495613
- OpenAlex
- W4296526417
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 0.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2019MF056)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
- Keywords
- autonomous vehicles, ethical dilemmas, ethical decision-making, common principles, public choice theory, utilitarianism, deontology, child protection, psychological factors, moral intuitions
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