Jesus, NPR. I haven't even had my coffee yet. Take it down a notch, okay?
-
-
-
Moral dilemma before coffee? The Horror!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As a rule, it should value the safety of non-passengers above that of driver/passenger. Pedestrians never consented to have anything to do with a car and its risk.
-
There are rules of the road for pedestrians too. If someone jaywalks on a highway the driver should pay the price?
-
yes the car and driver absolutely should have that responsibility and liability
-
The car affords a lot more protection than a crosswalk does. How many car + pedestrian accidents is the driver truly at risk of bodily harm?
-
Not many now. But if you program the car to crash into a tree to avoid the pedestrian the calculus changes
-
What if that pedestrian was your child?
-
What if your child is in the car with you?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Not to be cynical but perhaps we’ll get a better sense of how many accidents are cause by pedestrians.
-
0 accidents are caused by pedestrians. Pedestrians have had living with cars forced upon them against their will and without their consent, ergo 100% of the responsibility lies with the drivers and cars.
-
I completely disagree. I live in a city and was in an accident which was caused by a pedestrian. The young man crossed the street when the light was green, the cab in front of me slammed on his break and I did the same only onto the rear bumper of said cab.
-
I’ve also seen other accidents caused by pedestrians.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It’s the trolley predicament that is discussed in every intro to ethics course in college. There is no right answer.
-
and anything without a 'right answer' should not be left to an AI or computer program. if something relies on human judgement to be acceptable, then a human needs to be involved to take responsibility. i am having trouble accepting that humans are ready to be killed by AI machine
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Should journalists have ethics?
-
Journalism is completely dependent on ethics in the sense that only real objectivity can allow impersonal truth to thrive. But these modern derivative journalists think taking sides in an ethical conflict means they are ethical even if they do it unethically... ironically...
-
When it comes to cable news there is only marketing.
-
Hate to say something good about the caste system but the fact is that the merchant class is supposed to do merchandising & the warrior cast also supposed to be subordinate to those who are more likely to know. Problem is even the Priestly class is corrupt nowadays...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Securely send us news tips: