Watch the following Ted-Ed video Self-Driving Cars by Patrick Lin (2015) and answer the following questions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixIoDYVfKA0Links to an external site.
1.) At 1:19, Lin claims there’s a difference between an instinctual reaction and a conscious decision, and programmers of self-driving cars have a dilemma: they must choose what a self-driving car does when swerving into another vehicle to avoid a falling object.
Lin claims, “If a programmer were to instruct the car [to hit another motorist] . . . well that looks more like premeditated homicide.” Is Lin’s argument an example of a hyperbole as rhetorical device? Explain your answers.
2.)A syllogism in Lin’s argument can be summarized as follows:
Major premise: Murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of another human being.
Minor premise: Programmers of self-driving cars must intentionally and premeditatively program a car to kill another human being to protect the lives of the driver.
Conclusions: Programmers of self-driving cars are guilty of murder if they program a car to kill another human being to protect the lives of the driver.
Is this syllogism using deductive or inductive logic? Explain your answer. If deductive, test the logical validity and soundness of the syllogism. If inductive, explain if the syllogism is stronger or weaker.
3.) At 2:03 in the video, Lin offers another ethical test. Driving in a car, you have two motorcyclists, one on the right and one on the left. One is wearing a helmet; the other is not.
A programmer must decide which motorcyclists to hit. Which kind of moral reasoning consequentialism or deontology best applies to this scenario.
Explain why. Using the kind of moral reasoning you chose, play role of the programmer, and decide which motorcyclists gets hit. Explain why you choose that motorcyclist.
4.) After viewing the overall video, which rhetorical appeal ethos, pathos, or logos is the appeal used best by Lin? Explain how Lin references that appeal throughout the video.