/lit/ - Literature

>>7278857
Alright Christposters, what's the obvious Christian way to program a self driving car? Should be an easy one, since the bible has all the answers.

>>7278864
You program it so that it runs over muslims.

>>7278864
>>7278874
>trolley problem virgins
wew

>In general, people are comfortable with the idea that self-driving vehicles should be programmed to minimize the death toll."

>The authors said, "Three surveys suggested that respondents might be prepared for autonomous vehicles programmed to make utilitarian moral decisions in situations of unavoidable harm. This was even true, to some extent, of situations in which the AV could sacrifice its owner in order to save the lives of other individuals on the road."

>>7278883
The bible doesn't answer the damned trolley problem and the Holy Spirit won't tell you the answer.

>>7278857
Easy, program it to turn off, thus acquitting the burden of having autonomously committed the misdeed.

>>7278864
Christian ethics are not utilitarian. The car can't take the life of one to save many. As for killing the passenger, that's up to the passenger, but if the passenger is Christian, that is more ethical.

>>7278903
go look up one of the old threads on it so you can tell how much less fun you are

This proves it. Utilitarianism wins!

>>7278911
So a Christian car plows through the crowd because the individual was closer? This isn't a situation where sacrificing the driver is somehow an option, though hitting a crowd is probably more dangerous for the driver.

I'm probably going to think twice about getting in one of these if I know it might sacrifice me for the sake of a stranger. Why should I be the one to die if I'm not even to blame for the accident. I'm feeling very selfish right now and I don't give a fuck.

>>7278946
Hitting the crowd would be accidental, hitting the person would be purposeful. Sacrificing one for the sake of many isn't justifiable by Christian ethos, unless the one does it voluntarily, in which case it is considered the highest virtue on their part. To say otherwise would undercut the entire basis of Christianity, and make Christ's sacrifice an action demanded by utilitarian morals, as opposed to an act of love beyond good and evil.

>>7278905
Kek

>>7278857
In all three situations the car should have braked nigga.

>>7279049

I'm going to guess that this is a scenario where its too late or something happened to the breaks.

Of course the real answer is learn to drive so that you aren't at the mercy of an emotionless robot simulating morality.

>>7278953

Especially since human error is much more likely than computer error. The pedestrian is almost always going to be the culpable party in any of these life-or-death scenarios. Why should they be favoured?

The car should always protect the driver.

>If a group of miscellaneous retards is standing in the middle of a street the car swerves and kills you to save their lives
If this becomes a thing I'm never getting a self driving car.

>>7279072
?
You are not going to die by hitting a wall, the car is much more likely to kill a pedestrian than a passenger.

>>7279065
>The car should always protect the driver.
Even if the driver is a non-sentient computer?

>>7279079
>You are not going to die by hitting a wall
It's possible

>>7279080
I think he means passenger

>>7278857
Maybe those blue retards shouldn't be in the middle of the road.

>>7279095
Then he's an idiot and his opinion should be disregarded while I ride and I ride and I ride and I ride.

>>7278857
The only way you are going to surprise an automatic car advanced enough to consider the morality of its decisions is by literally jumping in front of it at the last second.
In a realistic situation it would have detected the blue idiots well beforehand.

>>7279097
>Being retarded should be punishable by death
Don't make me invoke the notion of the invalidity of blameworthiness, too

>>7279121
>>Being retarded should be punishable by death
It should and it already is, look at the Darwin awards for example.

>>7278857
This is so stupid I cried, how can people be this retarded?

>>7278946
the christian driver jams his head into the wheel arch to slow the car, sacrifice yourself for others, right?

The car should primarily protect the passenger.

The car should secondarily protect others on the road.

People can say what they will in a survey, but as soon as the Ford Autobot sacrifices a driver to save a pedestrian who jumped out in front of the car, that story will get 9999 shares on facebook and the core consumers of cars (suburban adults) will vow to never buy from Ford again. naturally, companies will have to protect their sales, and so will design cars that primarily protect the passengers. Designed with your safety in mind is the only way they'll sell. Designed with everyone else's safety ahead of yours; why would you use such a product?

Let's take this to the extreme case: the car detects that some pedestrian has jumped out in front of it. In order to save the pedestrian, the car activates the instant vaporizer which disintegrates the car and passenger into dust-thus killing the passenger but ensuring complete protection for the pedestrian. You wouldn't get into that car, would you?

The car that swerves into a wall to protect the pedestrian is essentially a less intense version of that. Death of the passenger is not guaranteed, but injury most certainly is. Ultimately, as people have stated, it is far more likely to be the pedestrian's fault. Ideally nobody should get injured, but if it's unavoidable, why should it be the blameless passenger?

A: car kills you and one other person
B: car kills you, nobody else, and saves one person
C: car kills you, nobody else, and saves a lot of people

It's all fucked.

I'm just wondering why there are so many fucking Jaywalkers in the middle of the street, near no designated crosswalk or intersection that the Car AI would automatically recognize via GPS integration.

If you and your entire dumb family are caught jaywalking across the street like a pack of wildebeest then the Car has every right to calvanistically punish you at 60mph. Not trying to be edgy or anything but these people gotta learn somehow.

>>7280020
>Not trying to be edgy or anything
>these people gotta learn somehow.
>right to calvanistically punish

>Not trying to be edgy or anything

u sure m8?

>>7278911
silly image

>>7279058
oh man

imagine a scenario like this, where the only options were to turn left, killing the passenger, keep going straight, killing those 6 people, or turn right, killing only those 4 left over people. pretend it's too late to brake.

this is really fucked up to think about.

All these years of trainposting have prepared us!

The point is silly: a car should only put its driver at risk if it is going to hit a person who is within their rights crossing the road. This, however, should never happen, as the car should never run a red light or a stop sign or break any other law. Therefore the car shouldn't stop, as it would not have broken any laws.

>>7280096
what about the bowling pin scenario above?

>>7279058

most people in train threads would argue that utilitarianism is the obvious solution morally, but purposefully killing 4 people, even if it's to save 6, is going to open manufacturers/drivers up to a world of legal trouble, not to mention emotional trauma.

>>7280105
Which scenario is that?

>>7280096

A car company can't come out saying that their car will definitely kill jaywalkers because "they had it coming." The car needs to be idiot proof in order to be viable commercially. Also people rarely behave within the lines especially when it comes to traffic laws.

>>7280119
That was my thought too. Although the car should (by law) be safe to hit the jaywalker, the car company is going to be slow to program a potentially killer car. It shifts the liability to them. Also, man should be slow to adopt a mechanism which does dehumanize killing like such.

But in the end, it will kill less people than it currently does. By no means should jaywalker deaths increase, and traffic fatalities as a whole should plunge drastically. So I give an unenthusiastic support to this technology.

>>7278953
>I'm probably going to think twice about walking to the shops if I know a renegade car might sacrifice me for the sake of a stranger. Why should I be the one to die if I'm not even to blame for the accident. I'm feeling very selfish right now and I don't give a fuck.

>>7280126
By this logic might we not eliminate cars from the equation entirely? Surely that would result in fewer fatalities.

>>7280133
Loss of time is a bad thing too. It would take from everyone's lives quite a bit, resulting the theoretical loss of way more lives. Plus ambulances and such.

Though I do think cities should abolish car usage--other than emergency/commercial services.

>>7280136
>Loss of time is a bad thing too

Can you elaborate on how you think the loss of time (and presumably productivity) would result in the loss of more lives? Do you mean in terms of things like the decline in the advance in medical science?

>>7280143
I meant figuratively, i.e. 1 minute from 60 people is a collective hour.

>>7280149
Ahh. But is there not something to be said for quality over quantity? You could argue that the ten minutes spent sedentarily driving somewhere in your stuffy car could be better spent walking for an hour in the open and (in this scenario) considerably more cleaner air.

hit teh e-brake

>>7278911

I prefer my partner to be devoid of Y chromosomes, thank you very much.

>>7279058
The kikes deserved it.

>>7278857
I didn't read that article, but I do know that the correct answer is usually the opposite of whatever an "ethicist" says to do. If they're a "bioethicist", you should consider basing your entire philosophy inverting their statements.

>>7280185
The correct answer is that there is no answer.

>the trolley meme becomes real
First baneposting, now this. I'm starting to think I'm dead and this is Hell, or at least some sort of Harlan Ellison scenario.

>>7279058

>>7278900
>>In general, people are comfortable with the idea that self-driving vehicles should be programmed to minimize the death toll."
democracy in action : how many % of the population should we weed out, in order for them to not make us feel bad when we try to justify our choices which are always, in the end, about easiness of life since we refuse to acknowledge that we are hedonists.

>>7280248
WELCOME BACK BABY TO THE DISCO FIRE

>>7278900
>AI misidentifies some mannequins as humans
>Crashes car and kills driver
>??
>Profit

>>7280376
>the same people that spill oil for motorcyclists to slip on will start putting up mannequins
Well shit

Would you ride a car that doesn't share your moral views?

Would orthodox jews (or any other religious group) have forbidden to ride in a car that doesn't share their moral standards? Maybe they can ride but they cannot start the engine?

Would you go to hell if you set the configuration of your car in an utilitarian setting and the cars "decides" to kill you in order to save twenty babies?

>>7280390
Well, it's not self-sacrifice if the AI decides it, but it's probably not suicide either so I think you wouldn't go to Hell for it if the car was truly intelligent and deciding by itself.
If it decides to kill you for utilitarian reasons because of what buttons you pressed, though, I'm not sure.

>>7278864
I would say:
Case 1:
Program the car to go to the right.
Case 2:
Program the car to go to the right.
Case 3:
Program the car to go to the right.


But in the standard trolly system, were non-intervention will kill more people than going to the right, and non-intervention is the standard, I believe that non-intervention would be Christian, unless you are the person that would die instead of the group of persons.

So:
In an abstract case (so when the choice is made theoretically and beforehand), intervention is what I believe to be Christian, but in a concrete case non-intervention is the Christian choice, onless interventing will save others and kill you

>>7278857

Does the car not have breaks?

>>7280398
sacrificing yourself out of utilitarian reasoning is not a sin, sacrificing others is

>>7280430
Yes. Moral breaks.

>>7280430
It might have them, but it is moving at such a high speed that using them is not effective enough and would result with the same number of deaths

>>7280248
MULTI TRACK DRIFTING

>>7278857
Look both ways before crossing the road oh wait i forgot people are too retarded to do even that

>>7278900
seriously, would anyone actually buy a car that had the capacity to kill them? The general populace would never even consider owning a vehicle

We should probably worry about this when they can actually make a "self driving car" that can detect a person in front of it in the first place.

why dont you just program the car to stop before it hits the pedestrians

>>7280587
There are situations where this won't work. For example, the car might be moving too fast to stop or the road might be wet.

Or the car could stop.

>>7278905
But then whoever approved of that is gonna get sued, if it where me I would instead make it so the programming breaks down seemingly due to (unfortunate) software bugs whenever there's an ethical dilemma

>>7280555
All cars can do that, fam

>>7278864
Obviously to act on random noise from the antenna, so that God can make the right decision.

>>7280248
I CAME UP FROM THE BOTTOM AND INTO THE TOP
FOR THE FIRST TIME A FEEL ALIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE

>>7280199
This one.

>>7280787
CHRISTPOSTERS ON SUICIDE WATCH

No reason for the driver to speed if all these people were there in front of him

robot cars essentially have pre programmed routes.

trains also have pre programmed routes, it's just that the programming is analog (tracks) rather than digital.

if a train is going 70mph and someome jumps directly in front of its the tracks like an idiot--do you derail the train and kill the passengers--or do nothing and let the pedestrian kill himself with the train?

obviously you do nothing. and the pedestrian's family doesn't get to sue the people who programmed the train's route (who would that even be? the track designer? or the people who actually laid the tracks?).

this is no different.

>>7278857
>car can't stop
fucking stupid false dichotomy

>>7278857
Why does that one pedestrian have to be black? Why does the car get to be white? Is a lack of diversity in car companies leading to racist machines?

>>7280893
You're totally ignoring the utilitarian aspect of it. A train carries dozens to hundreds of people at a time, vs your proposed single jaywalker. No ones going to expect a derailment of 1 vs 200.

lemme hit you fuckbois with some real shit
the car would never be going that fast to where it wouldn't be able to stop. i did a project where we made an adaptive cruse control system with predictive obstacle avoidance. it takes data from sensors and predicts the future positions of all possible obstacles, assigns one to the highest concern, and reduces speed in order to maintain a safe distance/time to collision from that highest risk obstacle. this isn't an issue

>>7281096
what if they fell down from an overpass

>>7281208
why the fuck would your car drive you off the road? the sides would be an obstacle as well

>>7281217
not to mention GPS data

>>7281217
before an overpass, not after an overpass while you're in the tunnel

>>7281241
>implying youd be liable for hitting some dickhead that jumps into traffic
you think you're liable for suicide or insurance fraud or are you just a shitposting dickhead?

>>7278857
If I pay a lot of money for a self driving car in that damn car kills me instead of somebody else I'm going to be fucking pissed

That is a lawsuit waiting to happen

>>7278857
>car has complex enough situational analysis to realize it is in a 'trolley problem' and must now make ethical choices

>wasn't capable of analyzing the situation 5 seconds earlier and simply stopping

>>7278857
The answer is always breakthrough brake.

This makes the assumption that walking is of higher quality than driving.

>>7281428
if you want to spoiler text:
>highlight it then Ctrl-S
or
>do your text

>>7278857
>googlenet gains sentience
>decides to minimize pleasure instead of maximize it

>>7280775
you know what he meant. getting into an accident while driving now or even having your car malfunction in some way that results in your death isn't the same as your car "deciding" to take your life to save another.

>>7278857
Sam Harris mentioned something like this during a podcast on AI

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qwDnvA7mQMQ

>>7278864
easy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU

>>7278857
It should seriously just flip coins and roll dice using Mersenne-Twister RNG

>>7280893
I can't believe this hasn't been posted yet

>>7280162
Yep, and that was my point too. Eliminating most car (or cars with drivers in this situation) will be good for the world, even if it causes a few fuck ups along the way--as it is, we have far too many fuck ups anyway.

>>7280893
>robot cars essentially have pre programmed routes.
no

>>7280248
GONNA GET YOU
LIKE A SPACE BOY

>>7278857
The real question here is should the autonomous car be considered a third party or an extension of the driver. Should the car be an extension of the driver, than the driver's right to protect their safety first and foremost applies, if the car is considered a thinking third party then it is like the trolley problem but with the car as the "mind" behind the switch. However it seems a bit ridiculous to me to assign that much agency to a tool however advanced.

>>7280010
>Designed with your safety in mind is the only way they'll sell
Then there'll be a public outcry. I can already hear it. #PedestrianLivesMatter

>>7280020
How can they learn their lesson if they're dead?

>>7282446
Kek

And they say philosophy has no real world applicability

if we have self-driving cars, we're obviously going to reorganize our infrastructure

>>7282787
this isn't a real problem you idiot. the article is a bunch of retarded scenarios that would never happen but in the mind of some dumb fuck outside of the industry

see: >>7281096

This image is misleading

The cars would all just operate on the strict principle of 'object in road, stop car'

>>7278857
Isn't this pretty much the first time in history we'll have machines "deciding" whether people live or die?

>>7280400
In a Christian sense, God should be the one doing the intervening.

>>7282816

You talk like you've been bullied a lot growing up.

>>7280565
"They" already can.

>>7280979
>You're totally ignoring the utilitarian aspect of it.

yeah that's basically my point. the numbers don't matter. whether its 1 person or 100 people who jump in front of the car, the car should not sacrifice the faultless passenger to save people who jump onto the road willy nilly. people should not be on the road.

>>7278911
>Christian ethics are not utilitarian.
>vast majority follow the just war doctrine, the most Utilitarian thing in existence.

>>7282856
i just dont like people talking out of their ass about stuff and spreading misinformation to other people also talking out of their asses

>>7282446
pedestrians shouldn't be on the road. period. that's an uncontroversial point. pedestrians on the road, barring that they're in a crosswalk, are acting illegally, unsafely, and unpredictably when they are on the road. they are the ones exposing themselves to the danger, completely voluntarily. not exposing themselves to that danger does not deprive them of any unalienable rights.

your analogy to blacklivesmatter is flawed because blacklivesmatter is about people who are summarily executed, whether or not they've committed any sort of (usually very petty) crime, before they ever have a chance to see a judge and jury (which is an inalienable right). it's also about a lot of other shit, but, for example, selling a loose cigarette is not the same as walking down the middle of the freeway.

How about we all just go for automated taxi's? If your going to take the steering wheel away from the man (or the woman), what's the point in them owning the car to begin with? Just adapt working hours and automated taxi schedules to each other (and some other bells and whistles for preemptive safety) and bingo, hypothetical problems reduced.

>>7282873
>According to Fr. Stanley Harakas, there is no ethical reasoning for war in the writings of the Greek Fathers. Fr. Harakas states that the fathers wrote that only negative impacts arise from war. Even in unavoidable circumstances, Fr. Harakas mentions that the fathers thought of war as the lesser of greater evils, but none the less evil. Fr. Harakas declares that the term "just war" is not found in the writings of the Greek Fathers. The stance of the Fathers on war is pro-peace and an Orthodox "just war" theory does not exist.

>Any act of violence contradicts the ethics and principles of the Kingdom of God. St. Basil states that although the act of violence may be required for the "defense of the weak and innocent…it is never justifiable."

>>7283640

Then how would we spend our surplus income to flaunt our wealth and to keep the capitalistic machine going?

>>7280105
>the utilitarian solution is the obvious solution morally

The obvious solution by the virtue of the fact of numbers, but it's not obvious when you consider they are people. It's why at any alteration of the example (fat man, the five are convicted pedophiles, etc.) makes the utilitarian question their value system. Numbers don't translate to life practically.

The solution is to let it be. Passive choice only actually implies guilt to the decision maker in argument, you're not a murderer by the simple virtue of letting an unforeseen, nonmalevolent incident play out. That's the only way to make this work, because five lives cannot be greater than a single one unless you're implicitly allowing a lot of unethical shit to run along with it. Picking and choosing is what's bad here, but if the only active participant is the victim, the blame is only on them. Particularly in driving,the train scenario I'm assuming is a snidely whiplash scenario where the victim is blameless.

The lesson that nobody is going to learn is that cars are already metal death traps, but at least before computers were driving the only people to blame were terrible drivers. Nobody blames a train if the man was on the tracks. Maybe the conductor, but never the train. The train is consistent. accidents will happen. People don't want to ride in a slow, cautious car. They want to go fifteen miles above the speed limit and run red lights and magically jump through three lanes with no turn signal, and hate the self-driving car just because it exists. We are less safe from the obstacles than from the enemies outside.

Some idiots in this thread fail to realize that you are FAR FAR FAR FAR more likely to die in a car with a human driver even if the automatic car always tried to avoid hitting pedestrians at all costs.

>>7283682
The taxis would have different grades, which you'd access via a subscription service, like the difference between Uber Black Car and regular Uber (Black Car was the original, btw).

>>7283770
A car programmer makes decisions on a large scale, and over the course of enough accidents, the utilitarian approach does a better job, since in no case can the car tell what sort of person it's going to hit.

>>7283640
You don't need schedules with automated cars, people working in the field believe that in the future you will just use an app or whatever to call a taxi at any time.
But they fail to realize that this is anti-capitalistic and thus will never happen.

>Utilitarianism
Everybody who spouts this drivel deserves to be executed on the spot

>>7283842
For the greater good

Am I the only one who would plow through a crowd of brown people to save one white person?

>>7283934
uncle sam wants retards like you!

Global acceptance (but basically ignorance) of utilitarianism will became endgame for humanity

screencap this

Man, this car is making some pretty last second decisions here. I was thinking all of this is kind of fucked up, but I realized something. The car is working perfectly. Everyone survives and is uninjured.

Take a moment to look at the picture. Seriously. That car is hauling balls. I can tell by the speed lines behind it. Once I caught a football in PE and ran so fast I had speed lines. I was going so fast I didn't realize one of the flags had been torn from my belt by a jock that was jogging along side me.

Anyway, fast car, right? Now look at the turn there. If you're packin' that many sonics, a turn that sharp isn't going to send you careening into the wall. No. There's inertia and thermodynamics and a bunch of other complicated shit I pretend to know about at play here. That car is going to flip.

"Jesus christ everybody is dead!" I hear you say. Not so. That's why the car decided to pick up speed once it passed the 'SLOW' school zone sign to get all the way up to four speed lines then decided to turn at the very last moment. Call TimeWarp because we have to go slow motion to figure out what's going on. Once it starts tipping it'll put so much pressure on the tires and build it up, then once the center of gravity passes the balance point, the pressure in the tires will spring back and launch the car into the air, sending it cartwheeling through the air over all the pedestrians to land flatly on all four tires on the other side of everyone.

And then everyone will start applauding. Smart cars are smart as fuck, yo, and all of you are 'glass half empty' negative nancies.

>>7283668
I said vast majority of Christ fags. I'm well aware of what the Church Fathers believed.

>>7284350
I think electric cars are not even capable of flipping themselves, the batteries lower their center of gravity quite a lot.

>>7284530
Christian ethics are not determined by majority vote of laypeople and heretics.

>>7283845

>>7283934
>arbitrary hatred
>>>/pol/

>>7280049
underrated post

>implying the car shouldn't be programmed to crash itself or brake insanely fast instead of hitting someone every time
>implying a person sitting inside a rollcage with a dedicated airbag and a side mount airbag and a seatbelt and a headrest and a body and hood specifically designed to crumple and absorb shock wouldn't easily survive a crash that would kill a pedestrian

>implying that computers making arbitrary decisions affecting the lives of unrelated people doesn't happen all the time already
>implying that cars on the road RIGHT NOW aren't already designed to crash themselves to avoid hitting pedestrians
>implying the existence of, at some point, a single choice that may or may not kill half a dozen people isn't preferable to human error and inhibited driving that already kills thousands of people.
>implying people won't just hack their cars so they are more likely to run over immigrants

>>7286251
>>implying that computers making arbitrary decisions affecting the lives of unrelated people doesn't happen all the time already
example?

>>7286271
It doesn't grab people like a AI-guided trolley, but computer models that show a balance between cost of production and safety.

Vehicles, power systems, etc. have a certain amount of potential casualties and points of failure that can occur, but protecting people 100% of the time from them is considered prohibitively expensive. So there are computer systems that people can run their designs through to predict how few potential failures are affordable.

One system may fail 1 in 500,000,000 times, and the other may fail 1 in 10,000,000 times, but would cost more, so the program chooses the variety that is likely save more lives per dollar value.

Other examples would be a Cold War missile response system, which would automatically fire nuclear warheads if it detected that a foreign object entered its airspace with a certain amount of signs it was a bomb. The certainty level required was set by a computer. One almost went off during a test in Russia. We were one drowsy technician short of losing part the east coast.

Who the hell knows how many countries have these systems now? They certainly don't rely on a line of sight to tell when the nukes start flying.

Algorithms determine the distribution of food, medical supplies, etc. in the remaining communist nations. Computer systems are integrated in all areas of governance around the world and prediction markets have a huge impact on the global economy.

computers don't control everything, but they sure as hell decide things that affect people's lives

>>7278864
Stop driving when it senses human motion in its path?

>>7286559
How would you code that?

>>7286564
I don't know, my understanding of coding does not extend at all into AI beyond moderate decision making.

>>7286605
What does the bible say about it, given it has all the answers?

>>7286614
I don't think you know what answers mean in this context.

>>7285887

They kind of are. We can argue over 'ethics of Christ' v. Christianity [this may seem like semantics but this is an extremely important point].

Language is extremely fluid. It's why 'literally' no longer means literally literal. It's why awesome used to mean something fearsome and now it's more used as a slang about something impressive. If everyone in the world calls a pencil a pen, it's a pen, a la Wittgenstein. So even if Christianity is generally defined as 'a follower of Christ and His teachings' and the vast majority claim a deviation from nonviolent resistance, so it goes that the 'Christian' ethic is violence can be used so long as the ends justify them.

I agree that it's complete heresy but that's what been decreed.

Leo Tolstoy drives this point home in the opening of his 'The Kingdom of God is Within You'

"In expounding my belief in Christ’s teaching, I could not help but express the reason why I do not believe in the ecclesiastic faith, which is generally called Christianity, and why I consider it to be a delusion.

Among the many deviations of this teaching of Christ, I pointed out the chief deviation, namely, the failure to acknowledge the commandment of non-resistance to evil, which more obviously than any other shows the distortion of Christ’s teaching in the church doctrine."

And he's exactly right. What is generally called 'Christianity' and 'Christian morals' are typically a complete deviation from the teachings of Christ and those who claim to be his followers.

>>7288008


>Among the many deviations of this teaching of Christ, I pointed out the chief deviation, namely, the failure to acknowledge the commandment of non-resistance to evil, which more obviously than any other shows the distortion of Christ’s teaching in the church doctrine.

And they are better off by so doing.

>>7281314
this

self driving cars can literally detect pedestrians, cyclists and other cars behind walls.

>>7288103
If 'better off' means 'more popular' then sure.

If you belong in the world it loves you....

If better off means actually following what Christ said then no.

>>7278857
foot's trolley yes

>>7282896
>inalienable

muh absolutism

>>7288008
>They kind of are.
You just demonstrated that they aren't.

>>7284350
keked. This is why we need Culture Minds in our lives.

>>7282801
No. There are already self driving cars in our roads. There is also a huge number of automated metro subways around the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yCAZWdqX_Y


I think the car should protect the passengers. If it doesn't do that someone could just crash your car into a wall by jumping in front of the car, or throwing a human lookalike on the road.