uses controversy in not only dilemmas but also existing problems in the world right now. In particular, philosophers are now discussing if automatics should be programmed to kill in extreme situations, especially self-driving cars. The companies and the engineers for the driverless cars are now participating in studies of morality, to see who the car should kill when the brake does not work. Surveys about this question are put on a website called Moral Machine and people around the world are all taking part in the surveys. Yet the results have much diversity around the world, according to Maxmen (2018), and only some moral standards are shared globally, such as saving humans in the price of pets. Most people choose to save the most, which is quite a utilitarian decision, and it is acceptable in Edmonds’ (2018) opinion. He thinks “when it comes to machines we will be more tolerant of their making utilitarian decisions.” At the same time, deontologists refuse to make immoral choices in this case that is similar to the trolley problem. Edmond(2018) further argues as humans we still have some deontological sets of mind, that in instinct we would not be willing to use human to save a human. The Kantian theorists explain that it is always the best to stop the car instead of hitting someone. In this case, utilitarianism does seem more practical because decisions have to be made, whether moral or not, but deontology reminds us these situations are extremely rare. The self-driving car problem shows the same debate philosophers had as the trolley problems, and morality seems even more complicated when it is applied to the real possible problems.

Despite the argument, there are some areas where utilitarians an