Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lexi Frasher
Miss Cook
Composition
2 October 2017
Should driverless cars get a say in who lives and who dies in a case of a rare but serious
accident? In Iyad Rahwans speech, What Moral Decisions Should Driverless Cars Make?, he
discusses the ethical side of driverless cars. Rahwan and his colleagues conduct surveys and
experiments to see everyday citizens opinions on the situation. Iyad Rahwans speech is effective
because he uses ethos, pathos, and logos to state his thoughts and persuade the reader.
In short, this speech has been created because of the advancements of driverless cars on
the horizons. As a society, we are getting to a point where we have to decide what is okay and
what is not when it comes to cars making ethical choices for us (Rahwan). Iyad Rahwans speech
about driverless cars discusses that if we continue in the advancements of these cars, the cars will
be faced with the moral choice of who lives and who dies. Should a car get to pick if a woman
walking down the street with her baby gets killed to save a large group of elderly men and
women? (Williams).This is a choice not many people are ready to embrace; a survey was
conducted and only 39 percent of the people who participated in the survey said that they were
looking forward to driverless cars (Williams). In Rahwans speech, he will explain why.
To begin with, in Iyad Rahwans speech, his use of ethos shows that he is a credible,
reliable source and that has the audiences best interest at heart. In the speech Rahwan explains,
reducing carbon emissions to mitigate climate change. When it comes to the regulation of
Frasher 2
driverless cars, the common land now is basically public safety -- that's the common good
-- and the farmers are the passengers or the car owners who are choosing to ride in those
cars. And by making the individually rational choice of prioritizing their own safety, they
may collectively be diminishing the common good, which is minimizing total harm.
This quote shows the orators credibility because he is talking about the common good of
everyone, instead of just choosing to do what is best for the passengers in the car, he is showing
his moral character by saying that by people putting themselves first, they may be causing harm
to the vast majority. According to the website where the video is posted, Rahwan is a PHD
holder, the AT&T Career Development Professor and Associate Professor of Media Arts and
Sciences at the MIT media lab. His work has also appeared in academic journals; this goes to
show that he is a credible source because he is a professional so people can depend on his
information to be truthful. These are just a few of the ways Rahwan uses ethos in his speech to
Secondly, Rahwan uses logos throughout the speech to persuade the audience by giving
them reason to not support or at least second guess their opinions on driverless cars. In the
speech he says, The Department of Transport estimated that last year 35,000 people died from
traffic crashes in the US alone. Worldwide, 1.2 million people die every year in traffic accidents
(Rahwan). This is factual information because The World Health Organization (WHO) did an
article full of statistics on traffic deaths each year and the same fact the Rahwan provided is also
in the WHO article. The next instance Rahwan uses logos is when he states that he conducted a
survey about who the car should kill in a situation of life and death and the survey showed most
people wanted the driverless car to choose the action that would minimize total harm but that
these people would also never buy these cars (Rahwan). This being included in the speech
Frasher 3
effectively uses logos because because it persuades the reader to not have driverless cars because
a vast majority of people think its not fair for the cars to play God and also because most people
Next, Rahwan uses pathos throughout his speech to persuade the audience by appealing
All of a sudden, the car experiences mechanical failure and is unable to stop. If the car
continues, it will crash into a bunch of pedestrians crossing the street, but the car may
swerve, hitting one bystander, killing them to save the pedestrians. What should the car
do, and who should decide? What if instead the car could swerve into a wall, crashing
and killing you, the passenger, in order to save those pedestrians? This scenario is
inspired by the trolley problem, which was invented by philosophers a few decades ago
This quote from the speaker effectively uses pathos because it appeals to the readers by talking
about human lives being at risk. If a person believes that harm may come from using driverless
cars, people will be less likely to buy them or even ride in them because they do not want to be
faced with a situation like that. Guilt can really have a hold on someone and people do not want
to feel guilty or be held accountable by purchasing and using driverless cars because the car
would have to make the choice of who lives and who dies, whether they are ethically correct in
the passengers eyes or not. This is one of the ways Iyad Rahwan uses pathos to persuade the
All in all, Iyad Rahwan does a very good job at using the rhetorical devices: ethos,
pathos, and logos. Throughout the speech he convinces the audience more and more each minute
they listen that driverless are not worth the cost of human's lives. Rahwan uses ethos to show the
Frasher 4
reader that he is a credible source by showing that he cares about the common good of all people
and he also shows that he is credible because he has a PHD and a long list of many other
achievements. Secondly, Rahwan uses logos effectively to show the audience facts about traffic
deaths and all the people that do not agree with the use of driverless cars to almost scare the
reader out of using or purchasing driverless cars. Lastly, Rahwan uses pathos to make people
think about the actual loss of human life that may happen people decide to use driverless cars.
Altogether, the orator effectively uses the techniques of ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the
Works Cited
Associated Press. For Driverless Cars, A Moral Dilemma: Who Lives or Dies? Fox Business,
driverless-cars-moral-dilemma-who-lives-or-dies.html.
Frasher 5
Rahwan, Iyad. What Moral Decisions Should Driverless Cars Make? August 27, 2017.
https://www.ted.com/talks/iyad_rahwan_what_moral_decisions_should_driverless_cars_
make/transcript#t-369573
Williams, David. "It's Still a Bumpy Road Ahead for Driverless Car Technology." Evening
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nfh&AN=124322742&site=eds-
live&authtype=cookie,ip,custuid&custid=infohio.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs358/en/.
margins, page number, etc). (header, font, (header, font, (header, font, number, etc).
number, etc). spacing, spacing, spacing,
margins, page margins, page margins, page
number, etc). number, etc). number, etc).
Comments:
Total: 25/25 x 4 = 100 A
The essay is very well organized and developed. You answered each part of the prompt and
supported your analysis very well. The evidence clearly supports your point and is thoroughly
explained. Overall, this is a very good analysis, Lexi! Since you're not struggling with the
organization or mechanics of the essay it may be worth focusing on choosing descriptive, precise
words or incorporating more literary devices into your work (analogies, similes, sensory
language etc) to give it a little bit of style. Not a lot to where it is fluff, just enough to add a
splash of color into your more serious writing to make it a bit more engaging. Something to think
about for your argumentative essay.