>>63426229This is a completely moot point.
Assuming the car isn't breaking any law, if there's someone in its way it's their mistake, so it's obvious that if there must be a victim, is the one who committed the mistake, as it would be completely stupid to kill the innocent passenger just because some dipshit decided to not look both ways.
Not to mention those who would purposely jump in front of a car to cause an accident.
It's the same story for all automated machinery.
My city has an automated subway train with no conductor. Should they install a mechanism to derail the train if someone is detected on the rails and their number is higher than the passengers?
If I'm flying a plane with autopilot and some jackass with a paramotor gets in my way, should the plane selfdestruct to save the guy who put himself in that situation?
If I'm operating some machine in a factory, and the bosses retarded son gets dangerously close, in a way that if it doesn't move towards myself (and certainly killing me) he'll die.
Should the machine be programmed to kill its operator to save the child who did the mistake of putting himself in a dangerous situation?
I think it'd be stupid and injust to kill someone who did nothing wrong, just to save someone who did.
It's the same as the trolley problem. If there are four assholes on the rail, why should I kill one innocent guy to save them?
Just because he's in a point where it's easy to exchange his life for that of the four others?
Or why throw the innocent fat guy from the bridge to save them?
At this point, why don't we just select one random guy and gut him of all his organs to save a bunch of people?
We'd save more people than we'd kill, right?
