• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

oops our more portly members are fecked

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post

    edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.
    My 16 y/o daughter has said she would not get a self driving car for the simple reason that it was always try and protect the pedestrian and not the driver.

    However I did point out to here that in general under crashing a car at 40 is not fatal due to modern airbags etc - where as hitting a pedestrian at 40 could be fatal so....

    Not sure how it would work if some muppet walked into the middle of the motorway when you were doing 70...

    But yeah all of these things are just moral dilemma questions - and they all assume that the person making the decision has just happened on the scenario - e.g. they did not do anything to put the 5 people on the oath of the train in jeopardy.

    Which removes any 'legal' requirement for the person to do anything.

    But as soon as you act you will be held responsible for your actions.

    Comment


      #32
      It could be anyone including yourself that needs to be pushed, why the fat man when you could selflessly commit suicide to protect the five on the train?

      What if the person to be killed for the preservation of others is a research scientist who if they had lived would have discovered the antidote for the coming flu epidemic that kills all mankind?

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        Did the repeat the experiment with a not fat man?

        "Would you shoot a Jew if they were holding a knife to your wife's throat?"
        It depends if she's more attractive than my wife...
        Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
          In UK and US common law, you're not legally obliged to help anyone in danger or distress, even if there is negligable or zero risk to yourself.

          So legally, and arguably morally, you're perfectly entitled to let the five people be killed. It's just their hard luck and not your fault.

          But things may be more complicated if you had a part in getting them into their predicament in the first place, or if your job has an explicit life saving aspect such as a pool guard.

          edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.
          Why? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!

          The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
          Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Zigenare View Post
            The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
            You if you're the 'driver' unless they change the law so that the driver isn't legally in control of their vehicle. Perhaps autonomous vehicles will be legally treated as driverless busses so the responsibility lies with the vehicle operator which is still you. Unless they decide the software is responsible in which case the guy who designed the software is responsible, which could still be you. I think it might be a long time before anyone but the driver/operator can avoid responsibility. Expect loads of stickers in these cars saying you must be alert and have hands on the controls at all time. In which case what's the point?

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Zigenare View Post
              Why? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!

              The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
              Ooh...someone watched the RI Christmas Lectures

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Zigenare View Post
                Why? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!

                The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".
                This is why autonomous cars are a still a thing of fantasyl, the technology may "work" but the law around it is still a long way from clear.
                Originally posted by Stevie Wonder Boy
                I can't see any way to do it can you please advise?

                I want my account deleted and all of my information removed, I want to invoke my right to be forgotten.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by ladymuck View Post
                  Ooh...someone watched the RI Christmas Lectures
                  I did, along with my son.
                  Old Greg - In search of acceptance since Mar 2007. Hoping each leap will be his last.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    It would not just be murder if you chose to push that fat man, it would also be a breach of his human rights, under European human rights law.

                    I base this conclusion on two things I remember reading:-
                    1. The German airforce asked a German court to rule on whether they could shoot down a hijacked airliner in a 911 scenario. The answer was no. You cannot kill one set of people to save another, the numbers involved are irrelevant.
                    2. In a reality TV program I didn't see but read reports of, contestants played the role of politicians and had to decide whether they could destroy a dam, killing one person who had resisted all attempts to move them out of the way, in order to prevent a flood elsewhere that would kill far more people. The contestants were advised by actual civil servants who'd deal with this in real life. Apparently the correct answer was once again that it would be illegal to kill one person to save others.
                    Last edited by IR35 Avoider; 23 January 2020, 19:58.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by IR35 Avoider View Post
                      zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X