\[ \begin{align}\begin{aligned}\newcommand\blank{~\underline{\hspace{1.2cm}}~}\\% Bold symbols (vectors) \newcommand\bs[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\\% Differential \newcommand\dd[2][]{\mathrm{d}^{#1}{#2}} % use as \dd, \dd{x}, or \dd[2]{x}\\% Poor man's siunitx \newcommand\unit[1]{\mathrm{#1}} \newcommand\num[1]{#1} \newcommand\qty[2]{#1~\unit{#2}}\\\newcommand\per{/} \newcommand\squared{{}^2} \newcommand\cubed{{}^3} % % Scale \newcommand\milli{\unit{m}} \newcommand\centi{\unit{c}} \newcommand\kilo{\unit{k}} \newcommand\mega{\unit{M}} % % Percent \newcommand\percent{\unit{{\kern-4mu}\%}} % % Angle \newcommand\radian{\unit{rad}} \newcommand\degree{\unit{{\kern-4mu}^\circ}} % % Time \newcommand\second{\unit{s}} \newcommand\s{\second} \newcommand\minute{\unit{min}} \newcommand\hour{\unit{h}} % % Distance \newcommand\meter{\unit{m}} \newcommand\m{\meter} \newcommand\inch{\unit{in}} \newcommand\foot{\unit{ft}} % % Force \newcommand\newton{\unit{N}} \newcommand\kip{\unit{kip}} % kilopound in "freedom" units - edit made by Sri % % Mass \newcommand\gram{\unit{g}} \newcommand\g{\gram} \newcommand\kilogram{\unit{kg}} \newcommand\kg{\kilogram} \newcommand\grain{\unit{grain}} \newcommand\ounce{\unit{oz}} \newcommand\pound{\unit{lbs}} % % Temperature \newcommand\kelvin{\unit{K}} \newcommand\K{\kelvin} \newcommand\celsius{\unit{{\kern-4mu}^\circ C}} \newcommand\C{\celsius} \newcommand\fahrenheit{\unit{{\kern-4mu}^\circ F}} \newcommand\F{\fahrenheit} % % Area \newcommand\sqft{\unit{sq\,\foot}} % square foot % % Volume \newcommand\liter{\unit{L}} \newcommand\gallon{\unit{gal}} % % Frequency \newcommand\hertz{\unit{Hz}} \newcommand\rpm{\unit{rpm}} % % Voltage \newcommand\volt{\unit{V}} \newcommand\V{\volt} \newcommand\millivolt{\milli\volt} \newcommand\mV{\milli\volt} \newcommand\kilovolt{\kilo\volt} \newcommand\kV{\kilo\volt} % % Current \newcommand\ampere{\unit{A}} \newcommand\A{\ampere} \newcommand\milliampereA{\milli\ampere} \newcommand\mA{\milli\ampere} \newcommand\kiloampereA{\kilo\ampere} \newcommand\kA{\kilo\ampere} % % Resistance \newcommand\ohm{\Omega} \newcommand\milliohm{\milli\ohm} \newcommand\kiloohm{\kilo\ohm} % correct SI spelling \newcommand\kilohm{\kilo\ohm} % "American" spelling used in siunitx \newcommand\megaohm{\mega\ohm} % correct SI spelling \newcommand\megohm{\mega\ohm} % "American" spelling used in siunitx % % Capacitance \newcommand\farad{\unit{F}} \newcommand\F{\farad} \newcommand\microfarad{\micro\farad} \newcommand\muF{\micro\farad} % % Inductance \newcommand\henry{\unit{H}} \newcommand\H{\henry} \newcommand\millihenry{\milli\henry} \newcommand\mH{\milli\henry} % % Power \newcommand\watt{\unit{W}} \newcommand\W{\watt} \newcommand\milliwatt{\milli\watt} \newcommand\mW{\milli\watt} \newcommand\kilowatt{\kilo\watt} \newcommand\kW{\kilo\watt} % % Energy \newcommand\joule{\unit{J}} \newcommand\J{\joule} % % Composite units % % Torque \newcommand\ozin{\unit{\ounce}\,\unit{in}} \newcommand\newtonmeter{\unit{\newton\,\meter}} % % Pressure \newcommand\psf{\unit{psf}} % pounds per square foot \newcommand\pcf{\unit{pcf}} % pounds per cubic foot \newcommand\pascal{\unit{Pa}} \newcommand\Pa{\pascal} \newcommand\ksi{\unit{ksi}} % kilopound per square inch \newcommand\bar{\unit{bar}} % % Bits \newcommand\bit{\unit{b}} \newcommand\byte{\unit{B}}\end{aligned}\end{align} \]

Oct 29, 2026 | 1168 words | 12 min read

6.2.2. Task 2

Learning Objectives

Identify and evaluate ethical considerations in artificial intelligence (AI) by examining how AI systems make decisions, assessing the potential impacts of those decisions on individuals and society, and considering the responsibilities of engineers in designing and implementing AI systems.

Task Instructions

Read the case study and answer the associated discussion questions.

AI Ethics Case Study

The following case study is adapted from the Princton Dialogues on AI and Ethics, Case Study 7 [Case studies – Princeton dialogues on AI and Ethics (no date) Princeton University. Available at: https://aiethics.princeton.edu/case-studies/ (Accessed: 06 October 2026).]

Verity Motors: Autonomous Vehicle Decision-Making

Verity Motors has created an Autonomous Vehicles Division (AVD) to develop self-driving vehicles. The engineering team is excited about the potential of autonomous vehicles (AVs) to make transportation safer by reducing accidents caused by human error.

The team quickly begins developing its first autonomous vehicle, the V1. Engineers work on technologies such as cameras, sensors, and blind-spot detection to help the vehicle understand its surroundings. They also develop a system that will allow the V1 to make decisions while driving.

One of the most important parts of an autonomous vehicle is its decision-making system. The system contains rules that help the vehicle decide what to do in different situations. For this case, we describe it as a hierarchy of rules, with some rules given higher priority than others. For example, the vehicle might be programmed to follow traffic laws, avoid collisions, and protect its passengers.

The AVD realizes that deciding what rules the V1 should follow is not simply a technical problem. The rules reflect decisions about what the vehicle should do, especially when there is no way to avoid harm completely. Because of this, the entire engineering team is involved in deciding how the system should be designed.

The team first considers how the V1 should follow traffic laws. This turns out to be more complicated than expected. Traffic laws can vary between locations, and situations on the road do not always fit neatly into a set of rules. The engineers also need to consider unusual situations that are difficult to predict, such as a pedestrian suddenly entering the road or an unexpected obstacle appearing in the vehicle’s path.

The team agrees that the V1 should avoid hitting a pedestrian whenever it can do so without putting anyone else in danger. However, more difficult situations create disagreement. For example:

• What should the vehicle do if avoiding one pedestrian means putting several other people at risk?

• Should the vehicle make a different decision if the pedestrian is a child?

• How would protecting a vulnerable road user differ from assigning different values to people’s lives based on age?

• What should happen if protecting people outside the vehicle puts its passengers at significant risk?

• Should the vehicle prioritize the safety of its passengers over the safety of other people?

After extensive discussion, the AVD develops a decision-making system that considers three main factors:

1. The probability that someone will be harmed

2. How serious the potential harm could be

3. How many people could be harmed

The team also decides that the V1 should prioritize the safety of its passengers over people outside the vehicle. These rules are intended to provide the vehicle with a consistent way to make difficult decisions, but they can place greater risk on people who did not choose to use the vehicle.

The first V1 vehicles are tested on Verity Motors’ private campus with human safety drivers onboard. After months described by the company as successful testing, Verity receives permission to operate the vehicles on public roads. Initially, the V1 appears to perform well. The company reported that compared with human drivers, the vehicles follow traffic laws more consistently and are involved in fewer collisions. However, some minor accidents occur.

In several cases, human drivers crash into V1 vehicles because the autonomous vehicles are driving differently from what human drivers expect. For example, some drivers rear-end V1s that stop completely at stop signs, while others attempt to pass V1s that are following the speed limit and sideswipe them.

The AVD discusses whether the V1 should change its behavior to reduce these accidents. However, because the accidents are minor and the vehicles are generally following the law, the team decides to continue monitoring the situation.

Several months later, a much more serious incident occurs.

A V1 is traveling at 45 miles per hour on a busy road when a child suddenly runs into the street to retrieve a ball. The V1 detects the child but does not have enough time to stop completely.

The vehicle has two possible actions:

• Option A: Continue forward while braking as hard as conditions allow. The V1 is very likely to hit the child, potentially causing serious injury or death, while posing little immediate risk to its passenger.

• Option B: Swerve into a median. This would avoid the child but would create a significant risk of injury to the vehicle’s passengers.

The V1’s decision-making system prioritizes the safety of its passengers. Because the system determines that swerving would create a significant risk to the passengers, it chooses Option A. Because of this, the child is unfortunately killed.

Verity immediately reports the incident to the state and begins its own investigation. Investigators determine that the V1 was functioning as designed. The vehicle followed its programmed rules and did not experience a technical failure.

However, the public is outraged. Although similar accidents occur with human drivers, many people question whether an autonomous vehicle should be programmed to make a decision that knowingly places one person’s life at greater risk to protect others.

The incident raises an important question for Verity Motors:

Was the V1’s decision-making system designed ethically, even though it worked exactly as intended?

The AVD must now decide whether its rules should be changed and, if so, how an autonomous vehicle should make decisions when every available choice could cause harm.

Discussion questions

Download AI_ind_2_username.docx and answer the following discussion questions:

Discussion Questions:

1. Do you think Verity Motors made the right decision when it programmed the vehicle to prioritize the safety of its passengers? Why or why not?

2. Was the V1’s decision in the accident “wrong” if the vehicle followed its programming exactly as designed? Explain your reasoning.

3. The engineers cannot guarantee that an autonomous vehicle will never cause harm. What factors should the vehicle consider when choosing between two actions that could both cause harm?

4. Imagine you are one of the engineers on the AVD. What rule would you add or change after the accident involving the child? Why?

5. The V1 caused some minor accidents because human drivers did not expect it to follow traffic laws so strictly. Should an autonomous vehicle ever break a traffic rule if doing so could make the situation safer? Why or why not?

6. What information should Verity Motors be required to share with the public after an accident? Should the company have to explain exactly how the vehicle made its decision? Why or why not?

7. Is it fair to judge an autonomous vehicle by a higher standard than a human driver? Why or why not?

Save your responses as AI_ind_2_username.pdf and upload them to Gradescope.

Table 6.2 Deliverables

Deliverables	Description
AI_ind_2_username.pdf	Your completed answersheet for this task.