Name: Kiranpreet Kaur

ID: 100443349
Instructor: John Frazer
Fall 2024
Busi 2425
Individual research project
Option 2: Seeking first to understand

Introduction :

Autonomous cars are an incredible technical innovation with far-reaching

societal consequences that go beyond the normal debates about regulation,
safety, and efficiency. While public discourse often focuses on these practical
issues, there is an urgent need to investigate the larger societal implications of
autonomous automobiles. This involves the alteration of travel experiences as
passengers acquire more flexibility and convenience, as well as the potential for
inequities to worsen or improve depending on who has access to the technology.
The impact on labour is particularly alarming. Jobs in transportation are at risk of
becoming automated, raising worries about job displacement and the future of
employment (Bissell et al., 2018).

In this report, I will reflect on the values, logic, and power dynamics that
underlie all sides of the discussion, with a particular emphasis on the viewpoint
of those who oppose driverless cars, with whom I disagree. I want to portray
their point of view objectively, comprehend their rationale, and show the
societal forces that support their perspective. By studying their principles and
rationality, I intend to give a balanced perspective on a critically important
society issue. Finally, I'll look at how these power dynamics impact decision-
making, regulations, and public image.

VALUES:

Values have an important influence in developing attitudes toward autonomous

automobiles. Values determine whether one sees technology as a beneficial
advancement or a possible danger to society.
Proponents Of Driverless Car
1. Safety and Efficiency: One of the key goals motivating proponents of
autonomous automobiles is safety. Proponents think that human error
causes the bulk of road accidents, and they suggest that autonomous cars
might significantly lower accident rates by eliminating variables such as
distracted driving, weariness, and poor decision-making. The importance
of human life is fundamental in this argument. These individuals are
lobbying for autonomous automobiles because they believe the
technology has the potential to save lives and prevent injuries. (Are
Autonomous Cars Really Safer Than Human Drivers?, 2024)

2. Environmental sustainability is an important value. Proponents say

that autonomous vehicles, which can drive more effectively than human-
driven automobiles, would help to cut pollution and fuel usage. Electric
autonomous vehicles (which several firms are developing) are consistent
 with wider social objectives of environmental stewardship and combating
climate change. According to this viewpoint, autonomous automobiles are
part of a bigger vision for greener, smarter communities.(Óscar Silva,
2022)
Opponents
1. Job Security ; Opponents of autonomous automobiles, on the other hand,
place a high importance on job security and economic stability. For many,
the greatest immediate threat posed by autonomous technology is the
loss of jobs, particularly in the transportation sector. Truck drivers, taxi
drivers, and delivery workers are at the forefront of this issue. This group
values these folks' livelihoods and is concerned about widespread worker
displacement, which is strongly linked to bigger concerns of automation
and the future of labour. Their argument is based on the premise that
technology should not result in the loss of millions of employment(Vinod
Kumar, 2022)

2. Ethical and privacy concerns: Those opposed to autonomous automobiles place a high
value on ethics. Some dispute the ethical programming of self-driving cars, especially in
scenarios involving inevitable collisions in which the car must "decide" who to damage or
protect. This conundrum calls into question long-held moral responsibility and accountability
principles. Additionally, there are serious privacy problems. Driverless automobiles are
projected to collect massive volumes of data on its passengers and the areas in which they
move. For privacy supporters, the value of personal privacy is incompatible with the
possibility of monitoring and data exploitation(Martinho et al., 2021)

Rationality

While morals influence whether individuals favour or oppose autonomous automobiles, logic
determines how they defend their opinions. Both sides use different types of reasoning to support
their positions, but these rationalities have advantages and disadvantages.

1. statistics-Driven Logic: Proponents of autonomous automobiles frequently use statistics and

proof to support their claims. For example, they provide figures demonstrating how human
error causes more than 90% of vehicle accidents, resulting in millions of injuries and
fatalities globally each year. They believe that eliminating human drivers from the equation
would drastically minimize accidents. This type of reasoning is based on factual facts and
technical optimism; advocates think that as technology advances, so will the performance and
safety of autonomous cars (Sirwan K. Ahmed & Mona G. Mohammed, n.d.)

2. Technological development and Innovation: Proponents of rationality also believe in the

unstoppable march of technological development. Autonomous vehicles are viewed as the
next natural stage in the evolution of transportation, just like cars supplanted horse-drawn
carriages. Supporters claim that, while there may be short-term problems (e.g., testing
accidents, public skepticism), the long-term advantages of increased safety, efficiency, and
environmental effect outweigh the short-term costs.

Opponents of Rationality

1. Caution Over Risk: Opponents frequently exhibit more cautious or risk-averse thinking.
They cite recent occurrences with autonomous cars (such as accidents during testing) as
 proof that the technology is not yet dependable enough to be implemented at scale. For
these people, it is reasonable to wait until the technology has been well tested before
implementing it extensively. They suggest that hasty implementation may pose
unwarranted dangers to public safety, using prudence and skepticism.

2. Economic and Social Consequences : Opponents utilize instrumental rationality to

argue that broad adoption of autonomous automobiles, without adequate planning or
regulation, might result in undesirable social and economic consequences such as job
loss, industry upheaval, and increased inequality.

They feel it is unreasonable to proceed with automation without thoroughly analyzing

how to reduce the negative consequences. Their recommendations for regulatory
frameworks and social safety nets are consistent with logical thought aimed at achieving
a balanced and equitable outcome for society. This contrasts with a more "technological
rationality" that may focus solely on the technology's benefits (such as efficiency and
innovation) without fully accounting for its larger societal implications.

Blind Spot

According to the course material on rationality, both sides in the argument about
autonomous automobiles have some flaws in their reasoning. Supporters' blind spot is
that they rely too heavily on technology to solve all problems. They frequently disregard
or minimize the social and ethical issues that autonomous automobiles may raise, such as
employment losses and privacy concerns. They focus mostly on the good aspects, such as
innovation and efficiency.

On the other side, opponents have a blind area. They are so focused on the short-term
hazards, such as job losses and societal disturbance, that they may overlook the positives
that driverless vehicles might provide, such as making roads safer and enhancing
accessibility for persons who are unable to drive.
They may ignore the fact that some of these issues can be resolved as technology
advances.

Both sides have valid points, but they overlook essential factors that must be examined in
order to reach a more balanced conclusion. This relates to the course notion that
rationality entails thinking about long-term solutions and bigger implications, rather than
merely the immediate advantages and downsides.

Power Dynamics

The fight about autonomous automobiles is about more than simply principles and
reason; it's also about power. Various groups and individuals hold power in ways that
shape how this technology is created, controlled, and deployed.

1. Technology Companies and Large tech businesses like Tesla, Waymo, and Uber
are leading the charge for driverless car adoption. These corporations wield
considerable financial and technological influence, allowing them to push innovation
in the autonomous car sector. (Gordon, 2021)

2. Lobbying and Regulation: Proponents exert influence through lobbying activities.

Tech corporations and industry associations utilize their power to shape legislation
and regulations that promote the development of self-driving vehicles. This includes
advocating for regulatory reforms that would make it simpler to test and deploy
autonomous vehicles on public roads. These lobbying activities are a major power
 strategy, allowing supporters to shape the debate in their favour. (EMILY
BIRNBAUM, 2022)

Power of Opponents

Opponents of autonomous automobiles are frequently represented by labour unions and worker
advocacy groups, who want to preserve the interests of transportation industry personnel. These
organizations hold influence by rallying workers, staging rallies, and advocating for legislation that
safeguard jobs. While they lack the financial resources of technology corporations, they have the
ability to alter public opinion and influence lawmakers through grassroots initiatives.

SITUATION

In the case of Desi Rasoi Restaurant, suppose there was a discussion about adding a robotic waiter to
help with taking orders and serving food, which some employees opposed owing to worries about job
security and customer service quality. To address this issue collectively, I would adopt the following
approach:

Acknowledge worries: I would begin by acknowledging the worries of my coworkers. It is critical to

demonstrate empathy and understanding for their concerns about job security and the potential
influence on the personal touch of customer care.
Presenting Values: I would stress the values we share as a team, such as delivering outstanding
service and ensuring a good dining experience for guests. This common ground can assist to shape
the conversation about how robotic servers might supplement rather than replace our labour.

I would describe the argument for considering a robotic server. For example, I might explain how it
may assist minimize wait times during peak hours, allowing us to concentrate more on human
contacts with clients and improving overall service. Emphasizing the potential advantages for both
employees and consumers can help change the focus from fear to opportunity.
Power dynamics: It is critical to understand who has influence in the decision-making process. I
would identify important stakeholders, such as the restaurant manager or owner, and propose a
meeting where all employees may share their thoughts. This guarantees that everyone feels heard and
appreciated during the decision-making process.

Finding a Compromise: Finally, I'd like to offer a trial term for the robotic server, during which we
may assess its influence on both employees and consumers. This technique enables us to evaluate its
success without completely committing, and it answers worries about job loss by demonstrating that
human personnel will continue to play an important part in customer support.
By employing this approach, I believe we can foster a more inclusive environment in which
everyone's beliefs and concerns are honoured, resulting in an acceptable outcome for the whole team.

References

Bissell, D., Birtchnell, T., Elliott, A., & Hsu, E. L. (2018). Autonomous
automobilities: The social impacts of driverless vehicles. Current Sociology,
68(1), 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118816743
Are autonomous cars really safer than human drivers? (2024, September 10).
World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/are-
autonomous-cars-really-safer-than-human-drivers/
Óscar Silva, Ó. S. (2022). Environmental impacts of autonomous vehicles: A
review of the scientific literature. Science Direct, 830(830).
Vinod Kumar, V. K. (2022, February 15). Autonomous Vehicles And Their Impact
On The Economy. Forbes.
Martinho, A., Herber, N., Kroesen, M., & Chorus, C. (2021). Ethical issues in
focus by the autonomous vehicles industry. Transport Reviews, 41(5), 556–577.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1862355
Sirwan K. Ahmed,Corresponding Author, S. K. A., & Mona G. Mohammed, M. G.
M. (n.d.). Road traffic accidental injuries and deaths: A neglected global health
issue. National Library of Medicine.
Gordon, C. (2021, December 31). Driverless Car Market Leaders Innovating The
Transportation Industry. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/cindygordon/2021/12/29/driverless-car-market-
leaders-innovating-the-transportation-industry/
EMILY BIRNBAUM, E. B. (2022, January 24). Tech spent big on lobbying last year.