The Moral Machine game http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
developed at and hosted by MIT presents a series of philosophical trolley problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
for people to determine what behaviour an autonomous vehicle should take in the case of its brakes failing and some combination of passengers and pedestrians being at risk. This follows recent coverage this year over whether autonomous cars might have to make decisions that affect innocent people’s lives. You’ll get 13 scenarios and can take the test multiple times before any chance of seeing the same scenario again.
Factors that influence your moral choices in the presented trolley problems include the number of people and their age, fitness, sex, pregnancy, criminality, social value, the presence of animals, and whether the pedestrians are breaking the law or not. Once done you’ll get a results page that compares your overall answers to the average of others who have played the game. This can sometimes vary however (low statistical sampling with only 13 scenarios at a time) as I found it sometimes said I had a bias to save women, whereas I felt I was gender-neutral on the whole and didn’t often consider sex as a factor.
Anyway, have a play and please share your results via a link in the comments if you can. Some of my test results:http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-264501416http://moralmachine.mit.edu/results/-95631885
For the image for this post I chose one of the scenarios that I was presented that I found morally ambiguous or morally controversial because it might make for a good discussion. In this scenario I chose to stay straight and not swerve, potentially killing or harming a child and three adults including a pregnant woman. Oh, and a dog. And sparing the one man.
My rationale is that the innocence of that one man is more important. He is crossing the road legally and, if anything, would be looking out for traffic coming from the other direction and so less likely to see the autonomous car swerve to hit him and so more likely to be killed completely innocently. The others have all made the decision to break the law and cross the road illegally; in so doing they are probably more likely to be aware of traffic coming from that direction and more likely to have a chance to move out of the way of the car. They should be held personally responsible for their decision to cross when they shouldn’t and their collective negligent or criminal decision to cross should not cost the innocent man his life; if it does so then they might all be charged with manslaughter or at least as an accomplice to such. The dog is irrelevant.