Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (1):59-82 (2018)

This article puts forward solutions to some of the ethical and legal dilemmas posed in the current discussion on how to program crash algorithms in autonomous or self-driving cars. The first part of the paper defines the scope of the problem in the criminal legal field, and the next section gives a critical analysis of the proposal to always prioritise the interest of the occupant of the vehicle in situations with conflict of interests. The principle of minimizing social damage as a model for configuring self-driving cars is examined in the third section. Despite its apparent plausibility, within the framework of a liberal legal system that recognises humans as free agents who have rights and responsibilities, maximizing the function of social utility does not justify harmful interference into a person’s legal sphere. Therefore, in the fourth part, the author argues the need to program the crash algorithms of autonomous cars based on a deontological understanding of the system of justifications in criminal law. The solution to the dilemma lies in a prior analysis of the legal positions of all agents involved in the conflict, from a perspective of the principles of autonomy and solidarity as the core of the system of justifications.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11572-017-9411-3
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,043
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 1998 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
What We Owe to Each Other.Thomas Scanlon - 2002 - Mind 111 (442):323-354.
Justice for Hedgehogs.Ronald Dworkin - 2011 - Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Should the Numbers Count?John Taurek - 1977 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (4):293-316.
Practical Ethics.John Martin Fischer - 1983 - Philosophical Review 92 (2):264.

View all 31 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Justice and Chances.Re'em Segev - 2018 - Journal of Social Philosophy 49 (2):315-333.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Autonomous Cars: In Favor of a Mandatory Ethics Setting.Jan Gogoll & Julian F. Müller - 2017 - Science and Engineering Ethics 23 (3):681-700.
Issues of the Theory of Criminalistics Situations.Snieguolė Matulienė & Rolandas Krikščiūnas - 2011 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 18 (1):345-366.
An Essay on the Criminal Law Justification Defense.Steven Richard Nuttall - 1991 - Dissertation, The Ohio State University
Criminal Liability as a Last Resort (Ultima Ratio): Theory and Reality.Oleg Fedosiuk - 2012 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 19 (2):715-738.
Ethical-Legal Problems of DNA Databases in Criminal Investigation.M. Guillen - 2000 - Journal of Medical Ethics 26 (4):266-271.
The Legal Person in the Criminal Justice of Lituania.Jonas Prapiestis & Agnė Baranskaitė - 2012 - Jurisprudencija: Mokslo darbu žurnalas 19 (1):293-314.


Added to PP index

Total views
182 ( #63,458 of 2,498,762 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
11 ( #67,653 of 2,498,762 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes