The Morality of Driving Cars

Abebe, Henok Girma · 2024 · Crossref

DOI: 10.5840/ijap2024122205

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This paper addresses the ethical implications of risk impositions associated with car driving in low-income countries, specifically focusing on Ethiopia. The author argues that current policymaking and academic discourse neglect the moral dimensions of road fatalities and injuries (RFIs), which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations. With 93% of global RFIs occurring in low- and middle-income countries, the paper highlights that motorization imposes unfair risks on pedestrians and other unprotected road users who neither benefit from nor have decision-making power over these risks. The study aims to fill a gap in moral philosophy by analyzing the nature and moral acceptability of these risk impositions using a structured ethical framework. The methodology employs a model of ethical risk analysis developed by Hermansson and Hansson, which categorizes stakeholders into three roles: risk exposed, beneficiaries, and decision makers. The author applies this framework to the Ethiopian context, identifying specific stakeholder groups. For instance, car owners and drivers are identified as risk exposed, beneficiaries, and decision makers, whereas pedestrians and children are primarily only risk exposed. The analysis evaluates the moral acceptability of these distributions using mainstream ethical theories: utilitarianism, deontological/rights-based theories, and contractual theories. The paper also incorporates empirical data on road safety in Ethiopia, noting that fatalities have doubled between 2007 and 2018, with pedestrians accounting for 80% of deaths in major cities like Addis Ababa. The findings reveal that mainstream ethical theories fail to provide feasible solutions to the moral dilemmas of car driving in this context. Utilitarianism is deemed inadequate because it ignores rights violations and unfair distributions of harm, potentially justifying the sacrifice of vulnerable groups if societal welfare is maximized. Deontological and rights-based theories view the current risk imposition as morally unacceptable due to the violation of inviolable rights and lack of consent, but they lead to a "problem of paralysis" by suggesting the prohibition of all risky actions. Contractual theories also fail to justify the current system because the risk distribution lacks reciprocity; the majority of risk-exposed individuals (pedestrians) do not benefit from car driving, creating a permanent disadvantage for the underprivileged. Consequently, the author concludes that the current risk imposition is morally problematic and unfair. The significance of the paper lies in its argument that addressing these ethical failures requires promoting specific moral obligations for actors who decide on and benefit from risk impositions. These obligations include improving knowledge about risk nature, communicating with the unfairly risk-exposed, compensating those harmed, and fostering attitudinal changes regarding road safety. The author emphasizes that enhancing the safety of children and pedestrians requires a political and societal commitment to effective road safety measures that eliminate major risk factors. The paper calls for a shift from merely technical solutions to a moral framework that recognizes the duties of beneficiaries and decision-makers toward those who bear the disproportionate burden of road traffic risks.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• traffic safety culture