Autonomous System Moral Framework Transparency Obligation Invoked in AV Design
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/165#Autonomous_System_Moral_Framework_Transparency_Obligation_Invoked_in_AV_Design
Properties
Instance of
AutonomousSystemMoralFrameworkTransparencyObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AutonomousSystemMoralFrameworkTransparencyObligation
Applied to
Automobile Manufacturer Autonomous Vehicle Developer Client (Present Case)
Autonomous vehicle crash-avoidance algorithm
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Confidentiality
Public Welfare Paramount
Concrete expression
Engineer A's risk assessment team bears an obligation to ensure that the moral framework embedded in the autonomous vehicle's crash-avoidance algorithm — whichever framework the manufacturer ultimately adopts — is transparently disclosed to regulators, the public, and prospective vehicle purchasers, rather than being obscured within the technical specifications of the software system
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Interpretation
The choice between passenger-protective and harm-minimizing algorithms is a moral choice that affects the public — prospective vehicle purchasers, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists all have a legitimate interest in knowing which framework governs the vehicle's behavior in unavoidable crash scenarios; professional integrity requires that this choice be made visible
Invoked by
Engineer A Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Team Engineer
Tension resolution
Client confidentiality interests in proprietary algorithm design must yield to the public's interest in knowing the moral framework governing autonomous systems that operate in shared public spaces
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system
Text references
Engineer A is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system
does the vehicle's system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle's passengers or does the vehicle's software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident
TTL
@prefix case165: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/165#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case165:Autonomous_System_Moral_Framework_Transparency_Obligation_Invoked_in_AV_Design a proeth:AutonomousSystemMoralFrameworkTransparencyObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Autonomous System Moral Framework Transparency Obligation Invoked in AV Design" ;
proeth:appliedto "Automobile Manufacturer Autonomous Vehicle Developer Client (Present Case)",
"Autonomous vehicle crash-avoidance algorithm" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Confidentiality",
"Public Welfare Paramount" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A's risk assessment team bears an obligation to ensure that the moral framework embedded in the autonomous vehicle's crash-avoidance algorithm — whichever framework the manufacturer ultimately adopts — is transparently disclosed to regulators, the public, and prospective vehicle purchasers, rather than being obscured within the technical specifications of the software system" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "165" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T23:26:19.084798+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "165" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T23:26:19.084798+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The choice between passenger-protective and harm-minimizing algorithms is a moral choice that affects the public — prospective vehicle purchasers, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists all have a legitimate interest in knowing which framework governs the vehicle's behavior in unavoidable crash scenarios; professional integrity requires that this choice be made visible" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Autonomous Vehicle Risk Assessment Team Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Autonomous System Moral Framework Transparency Obligation" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Client confidentiality interests in proprietary algorithm design must yield to the public's interest in knowing the moral framework governing autonomous systems that operate in shared public spaces" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system",
"does the vehicle's system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle's passengers or does the vehicle's software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 165 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T23:40:57.917488"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 165 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
165
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-27T23:26:19.084798+00:00
First case
165
Generated
2026-02-27T23:26:19.084798+00:00
Attributed to
Case 165 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-27T23:40:57.917488
Generated by
ProEthica Case 165 Extraction