A number of companies including Google and BMW are currently working on the development of autonomous cars. But if fully autonomous cars are going to drive on our roads, it must be decided who is to be held responsible in case of accidents. This involves not only legal questions, but also moral ones. The first question discussed is whether we should try to design the tort liability for car manufacturers in a way that will help along the development and improvement (...) of autonomous vehicles. In particular, Patrick Lin’s concern that any security gain derived from the introduction of autonomous cars would constitute a trade-off in human lives will be addressed. The second question is whether it would be morally permissible to impose liability on the user based on a duty to pay attention to the road and traffic and to intervene when necessary to avoid accidents. Doubts about the moral legitimacy of such a scheme are based on the notion that it is a form of defamation if a person is held to blame for causing the death of another by his inattention if he never had a real chance to intervene. Therefore, the legitimacy of such an approach would depend on the user having an actual chance to do so. The last option discussed in this paper is a system in which a person using an autonomous vehicle has no duty of interfering, but is still held responsible for possible accidents. Two ways of doing so are discussed, but only one is judged morally feasible. (shrink)
The idea of responsibility is deeply embedded into the “lifeworld” of human beings and not subject to change. However, the empirical circumstances in which we act and ascribe responsibility to one another are subject to change. Science and technology play a great part in this transformation process. Therefore, it is important for us to rethink the idea, the role and the normative standards behind responsibility in a world that is constantly being transformed under the influence of scientific and technological progress. (...) This volume is a contribution to that joint societal effort. (shrink)
Most present day philosophers assume that chance or luck is morally relevant. That it makes a moral difference whether an action of mine has, by chance, good or bad consequences. I will defend the opposing view: There is no moral luck, luck is morally irrelevant. The examples which are taken to show that there is moral luck rest on conceptual confusions. The confusion between reasonable bad sentiments and moral responsibility, the confusion between ex ante rationality and ex post assessment, the (...) confusion between epistemic and normative assessment, the confusion between ideological interpretation and moral judgement. The canonical account according to which action is intentional behaviour, that the agent controls and for that she is responsible, can be defended if one discriminates moral from other forms of responsibility. (shrink)
Siehe hierzu auch Käthe Trettins Artikel: "Wider allzu schlichte Theoriekonzepte. Probleme des Reduktionismus - ein Blick in philosophische Zeitschriften" in der FAZ vom 20. Januar 1998!Dieser Aufsatz analysiert praktische Kohärenz auf zwei Ebenen: auf der Ebene der konativen Einstellungen und auf der Ebene handlungsleitender Überzeugungen. Der erste Teil befaßt sich mit der Kohärenz konativer Einstellungen und der zweite mit der Kohärenz handlungsleitender Überzeugungen. Die sich ergebende Konzeption praktischer Kohärenz ist gradualistisch und holistisch.Konative Einstellungen und handlungsleitende Überzeugungen sind eng miteinander verwoben, (...) da unser Handeln durch Gründe bestimmt ist. Die Ethik rekonstruiert diese Gründe. Daher kann es Ethik ohne Anwendung nicht geben. Die ethische Theorie bewährt sich in ihren Anwendungen. (shrink)
The paradoxes and dilemmas of social choice theory can be taken as an argument against a certain view of democracy: For the identity theory democracy represents a collective actor standing for aggregated individual interests. According to a second model of society, democracy has its normative basis in structural traits of interaction and cooperation. Within the formal theory of politics both the Arrow-Theorem and the Liberal Paradox undermine the identity theory and give us reasons for the second, the normative theory which (...) takes democracy as being constituted by strucutral rules. (shrink)
The paradoxes and dilemmas of social choice theory can be taken as an argument against a certain view of democracy: For the identity theory democracy represents a collective actor standing for aggregated individual interests. According to a second model of society, democracy has its normative basis in structural traits of interaction and cooperation. Within the formal theory of politics both the Arrow-Theorem and the Liberal Paradox undermine the identity theory and give us reasons for the second, the normative theory which (...) takes democracy as being constituted by strucutral rules. (shrink)
During the last two decades social choice theory has become an established branch of the social sciences. But in spite of its contributions on a high level of precision by logical and mathematical means the theory is still vague regarding the interpretation of its basic concepts. In this article I try to cope with that problem by distinguishing three different areas of application of social choice theory. The concept of 'we-intention' in the sense of Tuomela is examined in this context.
The empirical circumstances in which human beings ascribe responsibility to one another are subject to change. Science and technology play a great part in this transformation process. Therefore, it is important for us to rethink the idea, the role and the normative standards behind responsibility in a world that is constantly changing under the influence of scientific and technological progress. This volume is a contribution to that joint societal effort.
The theme of this issue of the St. Gallen Business Review is "Harmony". For this reason, we would like to discuss whether two aspects of our life- world are in harmony, namely economic optimization and morality. What is the relation between them? According to a widely shared view, which is one aspect of the doctrine of "mainstream economics", the functioning of an economic system does not require moral behaviour on the part of the individual economic agent. In what follows, we (...) will try to convince you that this is false. If all economic agents – managers, employees, bankers, consumers and so on – were purely self-interested, as mainstream economics assumes, our economic practice would fail. There are various reasons for this. Here we will focus on one of them, namely the pivotal role of interpersonal communication. (shrink)
In this essay, we argue against radical ethical views about human enhancement that either dismiss or endorse it tout court. Instead, we advocate the moderate stance that issues of enhancement should be examined with an open mind and on a case-by-case basis. To make this view plausible, we offer three reasons. The first lies in the fact that it is difficult to delineate enhancement conceptually, which makes it hard to argue for general ethical conclusions about it. The second is that (...) an appropriate view of the edifice of moral theory suggests that tenable moral judgements about human enhancement are the result of a careful consideration of the pros and cons that attach to the use of a specific enhancement technology. Lastly, we show that important normative factors in the enhancement debate can be used both in arguments for and in arguments against enhancement. The bottom line of our discussion is that we should treat issues of human enhancement like we do any other ethical issue, viz. by weighing up the reasons pro and con. (shrink)
In the following I try to show that there is an attractive notion of citizenship which is independent of any kind of collective identity. Citizenship is understood as one form of social interaction. It is argued that in order to understand social interaction adequately, it is necessary to introduce a structural theory of practical rationality, to the extent this conception of citizenship is based on the theory of structural rationality.
There is a plurality of good reasons for action. An adequate theory of practical rationality has to be compatible with it even if it requires certain modifications of our everyday practices of reasoning. Usual theories of practical rationality do not pass this test. It is envisaged how to revise adequately our understanding of practical rationality.
