The ethical dilemma of driverless cares is the ability of the car in making moral decisions.

Should the car be

programmed in choosing one’s own safety or public safety? The value that is most important here is the safety of
everyone.
Despite the ethical dilemma they hold, I do believe driverless cars should be pursued further. When programming
such cars engineers should take into consideration all possible scenarios that the passenger might get involved in and
assess them based on the greatest degree of safety. The scenario mentioned in the lecture is a rare case, but it should
not be disregarded. The programmer will be responsible for such accidents that may occur; thus, they must stick by
their code of conduct and strive for public health and welfare and hold full responsibility of how these cars may
respond in such situations. 

From a utilitarian perspective, driverless cars would be moral. They help passengers in arriving quickly,
cheaply, and safely at their destination. In addition, they reduce greatly the percentage of human error
when driving and would lead to fewer overall car accidents.

Kant believes that one cannot use people as means to an end. Therefore, driverless cars could never
choose to kill. I believe that if driverless cars followed the Categorical Imperative, they would be safer,
more controlled, and more predictable.

2) I am not in favor of paternalism .Freedom is a human right everyone should have. People are wise
enough to make their own choices and we shouldn’t enforce anyone to not do something. We could
advise people that what they are doing is bad for their sake and raise awareness instead. Paternalism is
only justified when the person

Bentham would argue with paternalism since it would for the persons own good and the person would
be protected from harm.

Mill would argue against paternalism since it goes against the freedom principle where everyone is free
to strive for his or her happiness.

Kant would argue against paternalism since he argues that one cannot violate another person’s
autonomy, freedom is very important to him.

Aristotle would argue with paternalism. A virtuous person would do what is best for that individual and
society if its for their own sake and the sake of making society better.