6.16 Algorithm-Based Dying and Killing
123
One would also not want people to kill each other on the street for a loaf of bread. So,
military people and think tanks have been considering other solutions, it seems…
When it comes to life-and-death decisions, these people often insist that one must
choose the lesser of two evils, referring to the “trolley problem”. In this ethical
dilemma, a trolley is assumed to run over a group of, say, 5 railroad workers, if you
don’t pull the switch. If you do so, however, it is assumed that one other person will
be killed, say, a child playing on the railway tracks. So, what would you do? Or what
should one do?
Autonomous vehicles may sometimes have to take such difficult decisions, too.
Their cameras and sensors may be able to distinguish different kinds of people
(e.g. a mother vs. a child), or they may even recognize the person (e.g. a manager
vs. an unemployed person). How should the system decide? Should it use a Citizen
Score, which summarizes someone’s “worth for society,” perhaps considering wealth,
health, and behavior?
Now, assume politicians would eventually come up with a law determining how
algorithms of autonomous systems (such as self-driving cars) should take life-anddeath decisions in order to save valuable lives. Furthermore, assume that, later on,
the world would run into a sustainability crisis, and there were not enough resources
for everyone. Then, the algorithms originally created to save valuable lives would
turn into killer algorithms, which would “sort out” people that are “too much”—
potentially thousands or millions of people. Such “triage” arguments have, in fact,
been recently made, for example in the COVID-19 response.
70
It further seems that military-style response strategies
71 have been developed for
times of “unpeace”, as some people call it. Apparently, they would imply the targeted
killing of unconsenting civilians, which is forbidden even in wartimes.
72 Such a
“military solution” would come pretty close to concepts known as “eugenics” and
“euthanasia”,
73 which reminds of some of the darkest chapters of human history. For
sure, it would not be suited as basis of a civil-ization (which has the word “civil” in
it for a reason).
In conclusion, algorithm-based life-and-death decisions are not an acceptable
“solution to over-population”. If this was the only way to stabilize a socio-economic
system, the system itself would obviously have to be changed. Even if people would
not be killed by drones or killer robots, but painlessly, I doubt that algorithm-based
death could ever be called ethical or moral. It is unlikely that fellow humans or later
70 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642460/; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC6642460/pdf/JMEHM-12-3.pdf;
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/die-grausa
mkeit-der-triage-der-moment-wenn-corona-aerzte-ueber-den-tod-entscheiden/25650534.html;
https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2020/3/31/21199721/coronavirus-covid-19-hospit
als-triage-rationing-italy-new-york;
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3022&context=faculty_scholarship; https://www.abc.net.au/religion/covid19-and-the-tro
lley-problem/12312370; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400.
71 Arkin [14], Sparrow [15].
72 Ethisch sterben lassen—ein moralisches Dilemma, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (March 23, 2020),
https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/ethisch-sterben-die-gefahr-der-moralischen-entgleisung-ld.1542682.
73 Hamburg [16].
123
One would also not want people to kill each other on the street for a loaf of bread. So,
military people and think tanks have been considering other solutions, it seems…
When it comes to life-and-death decisions, these people often insist that one must
choose the lesser of two evils, referring to the “trolley problem”. In this ethical
dilemma, a trolley is assumed to run over a group of, say, 5 railroad workers, if you
don’t pull the switch. If you do so, however, it is assumed that one other person will
be killed, say, a child playing on the railway tracks. So, what would you do? Or what
should one do?
Autonomous vehicles may sometimes have to take such difficult decisions, too.
Their cameras and sensors may be able to distinguish different kinds of people
(e.g. a mother vs. a child), or they may even recognize the person (e.g. a manager
vs. an unemployed person). How should the system decide? Should it use a Citizen
Score, which summarizes someone’s “worth for society,” perhaps considering wealth,
health, and behavior?
Now, assume politicians would eventually come up with a law determining how
algorithms of autonomous systems (such as self-driving cars) should take life-anddeath decisions in order to save valuable lives. Furthermore, assume that, later on,
the world would run into a sustainability crisis, and there were not enough resources
for everyone. Then, the algorithms originally created to save valuable lives would
turn into killer algorithms, which would “sort out” people that are “too much”—
potentially thousands or millions of people. Such “triage” arguments have, in fact,
been recently made, for example in the COVID-19 response.
70
It further seems that military-style response strategies
71 have been developed for
times of “unpeace”, as some people call it. Apparently, they would imply the targeted
killing of unconsenting civilians, which is forbidden even in wartimes.
72 Such a
“military solution” would come pretty close to concepts known as “eugenics” and
“euthanasia”,
73 which reminds of some of the darkest chapters of human history. For
sure, it would not be suited as basis of a civil-ization (which has the word “civil” in
it for a reason).
In conclusion, algorithm-based life-and-death decisions are not an acceptable
“solution to over-population”. If this was the only way to stabilize a socio-economic
system, the system itself would obviously have to be changed. Even if people would
not be killed by drones or killer robots, but painlessly, I doubt that algorithm-based
death could ever be called ethical or moral. It is unlikely that fellow humans or later
70 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6642460/; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC6642460/pdf/JMEHM-12-3.pdf;
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/die-grausa
mkeit-der-triage-der-moment-wenn-corona-aerzte-ueber-den-tod-entscheiden/25650534.html;
https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2020/3/31/21199721/coronavirus-covid-19-hospit
als-triage-rationing-italy-new-york;
https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3022&context=faculty_scholarship; https://www.abc.net.au/religion/covid19-and-the-tro
lley-problem/12312370; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17470919.2015.1023400.
71 Arkin [14], Sparrow [15].
72 Ethisch sterben lassen—ein moralisches Dilemma, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (March 23, 2020),
https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/ethisch-sterben-die-gefahr-der-moralischen-entgleisung-ld.1542682.
73 Hamburg [16].