[skolsuper]

If they truly believe that the autopilot driving is safer than unassisted, they might reasonably consider it an immoral act not to ship it. Given the number of lives lost in auto accidents every day, the issue is not as clear-cut as you're suggesting. It's a real-world trolley problem.

[ThePhysicist]

No. If they know that it’s safer in some respects but unsafe in others they should make sure it’s only used as an assistance system and make sure the driver is still watching the road when it’s turned on.

What’s immoral is that they allow people to turn this thing on and then play Candy Crush on their phone while the car does the driving, fully aware that this might lead to fatal accidents in some cases. Their marketing is misleading because they suggest that the system is safe and they don’t inform customers about the freak accidents that can happen when the system glitches (bad for sales). That’s not very ethical if you ask me.

[jungturk]

They require pressure on the steering wheel and make it quite clear that you're responsible for taking control at any time when you activate autopilot.

You and I probably agree that this might be wishful thinking to expect some portion of the driving public to do so faithfully.

Perhaps additional technology can help better guarantee attention and participation on the part of the driver.

[reallydontask]

> If they truly believe that the autopilot driving is safer than unassisted, they might reasonably consider it an immoral act not to ship it.

Then Tesla should be given it away, not charging extra for it. To do otherwise would be immoral.

[dmode]

That’s an absurd suggestion. Every car company charges more for advanced safety features

[reallydontask]

that's exactly my point, morality has nothing to do with it

[Klathmon]

They do.

Autopilot is standard in every single car Tesla sells now, for exactly this reason.

Here is the blog post on their website where they talk about making it standard: https://www.tesla.com/blog/update-our-vehicle-lineup

[reallydontask]

As well as bundling it prices have been bumped up, to me that is not giving it away for free.

[Klathmon]

Sorry I misunderstood your previous comment. I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do, not that they shouldn't charge anything at all for safety features, which is such a weird and extreme take that I'm not sure what to even say...

[reallydontask]

my original comment was around the point of mixing morality and business.

> I assumed you meant that they should include safety features for no extra cost, which they do

I could buy a car without it for 37500 and now I can't but I can now buy a car with it for 39500 and you would still consider this is no extra cost?

I must be misunderstanding what you are saying

[throwawayhhakdl]

There’s no moral problem with increasing the price when it becomes a better product.

There arguably is a moral problem selling a product with optional safety features that cost extra.

If tesla invented immortality fields within their vehicles, I have no doubt they would jack up the price, and that would be fine, because it’s now a much better car. To think otherwise would be silly.