ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Toward Implementing the ADC Model of Moral Judgment in Autonomous Vehicles.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Goodness behind a wheel: moral judgment in realistic traffic simulations featuring Agents, Deeds, and Consequences.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Moral Complexity in Traffic: Advancing the ADC Model for Automated Driving Systems.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Morality on the road: the ADC model in low-stakes traffic vignettes.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Contextualizing sacrificial dilemmas within Covid-19 for the study of moral judgment.PloS one · 2022Article
- A Deeper Look at Autonomous Vehicle Ethics: An Integrative Ethical Decision-Making Framework to Explain Moral Pluralism.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2021Article
- Toward a rational and ethical sociotechnical system of autonomous vehicles: A novel application of multi-criteria decision analysis.PloS one · 2021Article
- Editorial: Shaping Ethical Futures in Brain-Based and Artificial Intelligence Research.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Expanding Nallur's Landscape of Machine Implemented Ethics.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autonomous vehicles (AVs)-and accidents they are involved in-attest to the urgent need to consider the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI). The question dominating the discussion so far has been whether we want AVs to behave in a 'selfish' or utilitarian manner. Rather than considering modeling self-driving cars on a single moral system like utilitarianism, one possible way to approach programming for AI would be to reflect recent work in neuroethics. The agent-deed-consequence (ADC) model (Dubljević and Racine in AJOB Neurosci 5(4):3-20, 2014a, Behav Brain Sci 37(5):487-488, 2014b) provides a promising descriptive and normative account while also lending itself well to implementation in AI. The ADC model explains moral judgments by breaking them down into positive or negative intuitive evaluations of the agent, deed, and consequence in any given situation. These intuitive evaluations combine to produce a positive or negative judgment of moral acceptability. For example, the overall judgment of moral acceptability in a situation in which someone committed a deed that is judged as negative (e.g., breaking a law) would be mitigated if the agent had good intentions and the action had a good consequence. This explains the considerable flexibility and stability of human moral judgment that has yet to be replicated in AI. This paper examines the advantages and disadvantages of implementing the ADC model and how the model could inform future work on ethics of AI in general.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32632784What 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.