ArticleCambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees2020
The Immoral Machine.
Article in Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Collective Reflective Equilibrium, Algorithmic Bioethics and Complex Ethics.Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees · 2025Article
- The relationship between speculation and translation in Bioethics: methods and methodologies.Monash bioethics review · 2023Article
- A Study of Common Principles for Decision-Making in Moral Dilemmas for Autonomous Vehicles.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Collective Reflective Equilibrium in Practice (CREP) and controversial novel technologies.Bioethics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a recent paper in Nature1 entitled The Moral Machine Experiment, Edmond Awad, et al. make a number of breathtakingly reckless assumptions, both about the decisionmaking capacities of current so-called "autonomous vehicles" and about the nature of morality and the law. Accepting their bizarre premise that the holy grail is to find out how to obtain cognizance of public morality and then program driverless vehicles accordingly, the following are the four steps to the Moral Machinists argument:1)Find out what "public morality" will prefer to see happen.2)On the basis of this discovery, claim both popular acceptance of the preferences and persuade would-be owners and manufacturers that the vehicles are programmed with the best solutions to any survival dilemmas they might face.3)Citizen agreement thus characterized is then presumed to deliver moral license for the chosen preferences.4)This yields "permission" to program vehicles to spare or condemn those outside the vehicles when their deaths will preserve vehicle and occupants.This paper argues that the Moral Machine Experiment fails dramatically on all four counts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31581972What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.