Principles and Reasons Behind Automated Vehicle Decisions in Ethically Ambiguous Everyday Scenarios

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13837v1
• Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 11:52:33 GMT
• Title: Principles and Reasons Behind Automated Vehicle Decisions in Ethically Ambiguous Everyday Scenarios
• Abstract summary: We propose a principled conceptual framework for AV decision-making in routine, ethically ambiguous scenarios.<n>The framework supports dynamic, human-aligned behaviour by prioritising safety, allowing pragmatic actions when strict legal adherence would undermine key values.
• Score: 4.244307111313931
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated vehicles (AVs) increasingly encounter ethically ambiguous situations in everyday driving--scenarios involving conflicting human interests and lacking clearly optimal courses of action. While existing ethical models often focus on rare, high-stakes dilemmas (e.g., crash avoidance or trolley problems), routine decisions such as overtaking cyclists or navigating social interactions remain underexplored. This study addresses that gap by applying the tracking condition of Meaningful Human Control (MHC), which holds that AV behaviour should align with human reasons--defined as the values, intentions, and expectations that justify actions. We conducted qualitative interviews with 18 AV experts to identify the types of reasons that should inform AV manoeuvre planning. Thirteen categories of reasons emerged, organised across normative, strategic, tactical, and operational levels, and linked to the roles of relevant human agents. A case study on cyclist overtaking illustrates how these reasons interact in context, revealing a consistent prioritisation of safety, contextual flexibility regarding regulatory compliance, and nuanced trade-offs involving efficiency, comfort, and public acceptance. Based on these insights, we propose a principled conceptual framework for AV decision-making in routine, ethically ambiguous scenarios. The framework supports dynamic, human-aligned behaviour by prioritising safety, allowing pragmatic actions when strict legal adherence would undermine key values, and enabling constrained deviations when appropriately justified. This empirically grounded approach advances current guidance by offering actionable, context-sensitive design principles for ethically aligned AV systems.

Related papers

• A Survey of Reasoning in Autonomous Driving Systems: Open Challenges and Emerging Paradigms [49.66022971508878]
  We argue that reasoning should be elevated from a modular component to the system's cognitive core.<n>We derive and systematize seven core reasoning challenges, such as the responsiveness-reasoning trade-off and social-game reasoning.<n>We identify a fundamental and unresolved tension between the high-latency, deliberative nature of LLM-based reasoning and the millisecond-scale, safety-critical demands of vehicle control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-11T07:40:53Z)
• The Runtime Dimension of Ethics in Self-Adaptive Systems [5.0803118668252925]
  Self-adaptive systems operate in close interaction with humans, often sharing the same physical or virtual environments.<n>Current approaches encode ethics as fixed, rule-based constraints or as a single chosen ethical theory embedded at design time.<n>This paper advocates a shift from static ethical rules to runtime ethical reasoning for self-adaptive systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T14:57:30Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• Toward Virtuous Reinforcement Learning [1.3428344011390776]
  This paper critiques common patterns in machine ethics for Reinforcement Learning (RL)<n>We instead treat ethics as policy level dispositions, that is, relatively stable habits that hold up when incentives, partners, or contexts change.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-03T20:30:37Z)
• The Convergent Ethics of AI? Analyzing Moral Foundation Priorities in Large Language Models with a Multi-Framework Approach [6.0972634521845475]
  This paper introduces the Priorities in Reasoning and Intrinsic Moral Evaluation (PRIME) framework.<n>PRIME is a comprehensive methodology for analyzing moral priorities across foundational ethical dimensions.<n>We apply this framework to six leading large language models (LLMs) through a dual-protocol approach.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-27T14:26:48Z)
• Position: We Need An Adaptive Interpretation of Helpful, Honest, and Harmless Principles [24.448749292993234]
  The Helpful, Honest, and Harmless (HHH) principle is a framework for aligning AI systems with human values.<n>We argue for an adaptive interpretation of the HHH principle and propose a reference framework for its adaptation to diverse scenarios.<n>This work offers practical insights for improving AI alignment, ensuring that HHH principles remain both grounded and operationally effective in real-world AI deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-09T22:41:24Z)
• Technology as uncharted territory: Contextual integrity and the notion of AI as new ethical ground [55.2480439325792]
  I argue that efforts to promote responsible and ethical AI can inadvertently contribute to and seemingly legitimize this disregard for established contextual norms.<n>I question the current narrow prioritization in AI ethics of moral innovation over moral preservation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-06T15:36:13Z)
• The Odyssey of Commonsense Causality: From Foundational Benchmarks to Cutting-Edge Reasoning [70.16523526957162]
  Understanding commonsense causality helps people understand the principles of the real world better. Despite its significance, a systematic exploration of this topic is notably lacking. Our work aims to provide a systematic overview, update scholars on recent advancements, and provide a pragmatic guide for beginners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-27T16:30:50Z)
• Disciplining Deliberation: A Sociotechnical Perspective on Machine Learning Trade-offs [0.0]
  Two prominent trade-offs in artificial intelligence are between predictive accuracy and fairness, and between predictive accuracy and interpretability.<n> prevailing interpretation views these formal trade-offs as directly corresponding to tensions between underlying social values.<n>I introduce a sociotechnical approach to examining the value implications of trade-offs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-07T05:03:18Z)
• Towards Responsible AI in Banking: Addressing Bias for Fair Decision-Making [69.44075077934914]
  "Responsible AI" emphasizes the critical nature of addressing biases within the development of a corporate culture. This thesis is structured around three fundamental pillars: understanding bias, mitigating bias, and accounting for bias. In line with open-source principles, we have released Bias On Demand and FairView as accessible Python packages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-13T14:07:09Z)
• Automated Driving Without Ethics: Meaning, Design and Real-World Implementation [0.0]
  The goal of this approach is not to define how moral theory requires vehicles to behave, but rather to provide a computational approach that is flexible enough to accommodate a number of human'moral positions' concerning what morality demands and what road users may expect, offering an evaluation tool for the social acceptability of an automated vehicle's decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-09T07:49:24Z)
• A Counterfactual Safety Margin Perspective on the Scoring of Autonomous Vehicles' Riskiness [52.27309191283943]
  This paper presents a data-driven framework for assessing the risk of different AVs' behaviors. We propose the notion of counterfactual safety margin, which represents the minimum deviation from nominal behavior that could cause a collision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-02T09:48:08Z)
• Ethics in conversation: Building an ethics assurance case for autonomous AI-enabled voice agents in healthcare [1.8964739087256175]
  The principles-based ethics assurance argument pattern is one proposal in the AI ethics landscape. This paper presents the interim findings of a case study applying this ethics assurance framework to the use of Dora, an AI-based telemedicine system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T16:04:59Z)
• Factoring the Matrix of Domination: A Critical Review and Reimagination of Intersectionality in AI Fairness [55.037030060643126]
  Intersectionality is a critical framework that allows us to examine how social inequalities persist. We argue that adopting intersectionality as an analytical framework is pivotal to effectively operationalizing fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-16T21:02:09Z)
• Scruples: A Corpus of Community Ethical Judgments on 32,000 Real-Life Anecdotes [72.64975113835018]
  Motivated by descriptive ethics, we investigate a novel, data-driven approach to machine ethics. We introduce Scruples, the first large-scale dataset with 625,000 ethical judgments over 32,000 real-life anecdotes. Our dataset presents a major challenge to state-of-the-art neural language models, leaving significant room for improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-08-20T17:34:15Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.