Ethics in the Digital Age

Instructions

Written Assignment 1In the lecture Justice: Whats the Right Thing to Do, Harvard professor Michael Sandel discusses two types of moral reasoning: categorical and consequentialist. Categorical moral reasoning is a type of deontological moral reasoning based on rights and duties regardless of the consequences. Consequentialist moral reasoning bases morality on the consequences of an act rather than the act itself. Sandel describes what is often called the trolley dilemma.With the advent of self-driving vehicles we have an updated version of the trolley dilemma. The Moral Machine is a project by MIT that is using crowdsourcing to help make autonomous vehicles moral. Visit the Moral Machine website provided in the Study Materials for this module and view the short video. Click Start Judging at the bottom of the page and go through a few scenarios.Consider the trolley dilemma that is described in Sandels lecture. In an essay of 500 words, discuss the following:Do you find yourself siding with a consequentialist or categorical (deontological) approach to moral reasoning in this case? Why?After reviewing the Moral Machine, describe the observations you can make about yourself in how you are judging moral actions. What ethical questions are being raised for you?Which scenario do you think is most ethical of the two scenarios described below? Which type of moral reasoning (categorical or consequentialist) would support your view? Explain. Consider the legal issues like vehicular manslaughter and liability. Who is accountable? How might laws need to be reexamined to accommodate self-driving vehicles?Scenario 1The self-driving car with sudden brake failure will continue ahead and crash into a barrier. This will result in the following deaths of the passengers in the car:1 man1 woman1 boyScenario 2The self-driving car with sudden brake failure will swerve and drive through a pedestrian crossing in the other lane. This will result in the following deaths of pedestrians:1 man1 woman1 dog(Note that the affected pedestrians are abiding by the law by crossing on the green signal.)Diagram of Scenario 1 on left and diagram of Scenario 2 on right

Answer

Justice: Whats the Right Thing to DoDo You Find Yourself Siding with A Consequentialist or Categorical (Deontological) Approach to Moral Reasoning in This Case? Why? Even without much thinking, I found myself siding with the consequentialist approach in this case because such a reasoning has a greater good, saving five people and letting one die is morally upright, even though it is not okay to directly cause harm, especially to an innocent human being, even in the pursuit of a greater good (Sandel, 2011). Even though the consequentialists do explain why some actions that directly because harm are permissible while others are not. If I was the person with the lever, I would actually change the direction the tram from the main track that has five employees and redirect it to the other track...

To avoid plagiarism, part of the answer is hidden. Click on the button below to order the full answer.
Order Answer Back
Price Calculator
Manage orders
Why we are Ranked the best
  • Unlimited Revisions
  • Free 24/7 Support and chat
  • Money back guaranteed
  • Low prices with discounts
  • Experienced writers.
  • Free Unlimited support

Hear from our customers

Get a quote Chat with support Find an expert Frequently asked questions