Sacrifice One For the Good of Many? People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents

By Bertram F. Malle, Matthias Scheutz, Thomas Arnold, John Voiklis, Corey J. Cusimano. IEEE/ACM International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, 2015

317 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Against the moral Turing test: accountable design and the moral reasoning of autonomous systems (2016, background): “But does not moral attribution apply across all contexts of actions in which the respondent would operate/act?”
Interactions With Robots: The Truths We Reveal About Ourselves (2017, result): “Research on ethical dilemmas suggests that we think it less wrong for robots to make logical decisions that sacrifice one for the many than for humans to make the same decisions, supporting earlier findings that we attribute different standards to humans and robots (Malle et al. 2015).”
From Trolley to Autonomous Vehicle: Perceptions of Responsibility and Moral Norms in Traffic Accidents with Self-Driving Cars (2016, background): “For example, people more strongly expect a robot, compared to a human, to solve a moral dilemma situation by making a utilitarian decision—sacrificing one person while saving four [20].”