Introduction
The idea that ethics and ethical behavior are the building blocks of a civilized society is a well-established fact. Santoni de Sio (2021), in his article titled “The European Commission Report on Ethics of Connected and Automated Vehicles and the Future of Ethics of Transportation,” presents findings on the relevance of ethical behavior. The necessity of ethics is also addressed by Geisslinger et al. (2021) in an article titled “Autonomous Driving Ethics: From Trolley Problem to Ethics.” This review aims to explicate the authors’ positions on ethics and assess their arguments in the context of research practice.
Article Assessment
The European Commission Report on Ethics
Santoni de Sio (2021) carries out a critical review of ethics and issues behind driverless mobility as well as broad philosophical and ethical implications of recommendations made by the European Expert Commission Group. The author’s assertion that the ethical debate surrounding connected and automated vehicles is both a paradox and an opportunity is supported by sound research. The author’s reference to the Horizon 2020 European Commission Expert Group’s findings aligns with contemporary views on academic excellence.
The article provides a comprehensive assessment of the ethical background of connected and automated vehicles as well as the future prospects for ethics in the field of transportation. The author’s exegesis of the September 2017 Ethics Task Force report and the need for a discussion of vital ethical issues are clear and precise. The author argues that ethics is the foundation of all transportation endeavors and must be prioritized in all business and economic contexts. The article’s demonstration of the fact that road safety, data algorithms, and manufacturer responsibility are important areas in which ethical practice must be prioritized agrees with the transport industry’s explication of sound practice. The article does not present elements of bias or faulty reasoning in its assessment of ethical principles.
The authors organize the subject’s framework by highlighting the vital ethical elements contained in the European Commission Report on Ethics, defining ethics in the transport sector, and explicating the recommendations made by the European Commission. The aforementioned topics are well-defined, and relevant information from reputable studies was incorporated into the text to help contextualize the key issue, which according to the author, is the relevance of ethical behavior in connected and automated vehicles. It is worth noting that reference is made to the Horizon 2020 European Commission Expert Group Report, which is a valid document on which to base an argument on ethics. The document, which was commissioned in 2017 by the Ethics Task Force, was intended to address the need for ethical practice in the use and production of connected and automated vehicles (Santoni de Sio, 2021). The document is regulatory in nature and represents the official policies of the participant organizations and nations. The aforementioned document adds to the article’s rigor and reliability, which are vital in the determination of truth.
Autonomous Driving Ethics
Geisslinger et al. (2021) present a compelling argument for the lack of a framework for motion planning on which autonomous vehicle proposals by the German Ethics Commission can be implemented. The authors’ contention that a framework for the true application of ethical recommendations does not exist is rather harsh. In addition, the view that most research is focused on decision strategies implemented in dilemma scenarios rather than ethical trajectory planning is biased. The paper was intended to propose a novel framework for trajectory planning that takes into account the inherent risks and ethical conundrums that characterize autonomous vehicles.
There is evidence of bias in the article by Geisslinger et al. (2021). The authors view the ethical context of autonomous vehicle transportation through an inappropriate political lens. There is a risk that the excessive emphasis on the lack of an effective framework that defines ethical trajectories may skew the authors’ perspective concerning the validity of decision strategies implemented in dilemma scenarios. It is also worth noting that the article presents evidence of faulty reasoning, as evidenced by the presence of logical fallacies. For instance, the argument that the trolley problem, which contributes to the outweighing of human lives, is impossible to apply in real scenarios is hinged on correlation versus causation. The authors surmise that because the loss of human lives occurs as a result of an autonomous vehicle’s predilection to outweigh human lives, then the latter is undeniably the result of the former. It is vital to point out that a number of mitigating factors determine the outcomes in scenarios involving autonomous vehicles and pedestrians.
The aforementioned issues notwithstanding, Geisslinger et al. (2021) present a rigorous evaluation of ethics in transportation. The research design prioritized the assessment of the ethical context of unavoidable accidents in autonomous vehicles, the discussion of ethical theories such as the ethics of risk, and the formulation of a framework for trajectory planning. The sources that were used to gather data are reputable and reliable. The authors conducted a comprehensive assessment of the trolley problem in addition to an exhaustive assessment of the need for ethics in unavoidable accidents. Their evaluation of key ethical concepts in transportation is precise and relies on reputable sources of evidence.
Comparing Viewpoints
Geisslinger et al. (2021) and Santoni de Sio (2021) are largely in agreement with regard to the importance of ethical behavior in transportation. While the former’s argument places emphasis on the foundational nature of ethics in autonomous vehicle transportation, the latter highlights the policies and measures proposed by the Horizon 2020 European Commission Expert Group. Both articles demonstrate the deleterious effects of non-adherence to ethical principles. The authors agree that there is a need to fortify institutional bodies tasked with the enforcement of ethical policies to preserve life and promote safety in the transport industry. On the one hand, Geisslinger et al. (2021) conduct a comprehensive assessment of concepts, theories, and dilemmas that characterize ethics in transportation. Therefore, the findings are precise and based on a sound methodological approach. On the other hand, Santoni de Sio (2021) conducts a comprehensive review of the ethics proposals made by the European Ethics Commission. Consequently, the article covers a wide array of issues which limits its focus.
Conclusion
Ethical behavior is a fundamental aspect of operations in the transportation sector. The importance of the subject is evident in both articles. There is a general consensus that unethical practices have the potential to result in the loss of lives and cause damage to property. The support for the aforementioned argument is concisely presented in both articles. There is an evident adherence to academic rigor, as demonstrated by the use of reliable and evidence-based sources. In addition, the researchers acknowledge the use of information from studies to bolster their positions. The authors present convincing arguments in support of the need to promote and practice ethical behavior in the transport sector.
References
Geisslinger, M., Poszler, F., Betz, J., Lütge, C., & Lienkamp, M. (2021). Autonomous driving ethics: From trolley problem to ethics of risk. Philosophy and Technology, 34(4), 1033–1055. Web.
Santoni de Sio, F. (2021). The European Commission report on ethics of connected and automated vehicles and the future of ethics of transportation. Ethics and Information Technology, 23(4), 713–726. Web.