Pflanzer, M., Cecchini, D., Cacace, S.,
& Dubljević, V. (2025).
Frontiers in Psychology, 16.
Introduction: In recent years, the ethical implications of traffic decision-making, particularly in the context of autonomous vehicles (AVs), have garnered significant attention. While much of the existing research has focused on high-stakes moral dilemmas, such as those exemplified by the trolley problem, everyday traffic situations—characterized by mundane, low-stakes decisions—remain underexplored.
Methods: This study addresses this gap by empirically investigating the applicability of the Agent-Deed-Consequences (ADC) model in the moral judgment of low-stakes traffic scenarios. Using a vignette approach, we surveyed professional philosophers to examine how their moral judgments are influenced by the character of the driver (Agent), their adherence to traffic rules (Deed), and the outcomes of their actions (Consequences).
Results: Our findings support the primary hypothesis that each component of the ADC model significantly influences moral judgment, with positive valences in agents, deeds, and consequences leading to greater moral acceptability. We additionally explored whether participants’ normative ethical leanings–classified as deontological, utilitarian, or virtue ethics–influenced how they weighted ADC components. However, no moderating effects of moral preference were observed. The results also reveal interaction effects among some components, illustrating the complexity of moral reasoning in traffic situations.
Discussion: The study’s implications are crucial for the ethical programming of AVs, suggesting that these systems should be designed to navigate not only high-stakes dilemmas but also the nuanced moral landscape of everyday driving. Our work creates a foundation for stakeholders to integrate human moral judgments into AV decision-making algorithms. Future research should build on these findings by including a more diverse range of participants and exploring the generalizability of the ADC model across different cultural contexts.
Here are some thoughts on the modern day trolley problem:
This article presents an alternative to the trolley problem framework for understanding moral decision-making in traffic scenarios, particularly for autonomous vehicle programming. While trolley problem research focuses on high-stakes, life-or-death dilemmas where one must choose between unavoidable harms, the authors argue this approach oversimplifies real-world traffic scenarios and lacks ecological validity. Instead, they propose the Agent-Deed-Consequences (ADC) model, which evaluates moral judgment based on three components: the character and intentions of the driver (Agent), their compliance with traffic rules (Deed), and the outcome of their actions (Consequences). The study surveyed 274 professional philosophers using low-stakes traffic vignettes and found that all three ADC components significantly influence moral judgment, with rule-following having the strongest effect, followed by character and outcomes. Notably, philosophers with different ethical frameworks (utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics) showed similar judgment patterns, suggesting broad consensus on traffic morality. The researchers argue that "moral decision-making in everyday situations may contribute to the prevention of high-stakes emergencies, which do not arise without mundane bad decisions happening first," emphasizing that autonomous vehicles should be programmed to handle the nuanced moral landscape of ordinary driving decisions rather than just extreme emergency scenarios. This approach integrates virtue ethics, deontological ethics, and consequentialist considerations into a comprehensive framework that better reflects the complexity of real-world traffic moral reasoning.