EigoPro 準1級 読解 — The Moral Machine

Engineers have long promised that autonomous vehicles will make the roads safer, and the statistics broadly support them: most accidents stem from human error, and a machine that never tires, drinks, or glances at a phone should, in principle, crash far less often. Yet a stubborn philosophical problem refuses to dissolve. Sooner or later, a self-driving car will face a situation in which harm is unavoidable, and it will have to "decide" whom to endanger. Should it swerve to spare a group of pedestrians at the cost of its passenger, or protect the occupant it was bought to serve? This is the modern incarnation of the so-called "trolley problem," a thought experiment philosophers once treated as an abstract curiosity. What was once a seminar puzzle has become an engineering specification, because someone, somewhere, must write the lines of code that govern the car's response. A celebrated online survey, the Moral Machine, gathered millions of judgments from people across dozens of countries and found a troubling lack of consensus. Preferences diverged sharply along cultural lines: respondents in some societies were far more inclined to spare the young over the elderly, or the law-abiding over the reckless, than respondents elsewhere. These divergences expose the central difficulty. Whose values should the algorithm encode? A manufacturer that programmed its cars to sacrifice their owners would struggle to sell a single vehicle, yet one that always prioritised its passengers would, in aggregate, license a kind of automated selfishness. Some ethicists argue that the dilemma is overstated, since such no-win scenarios are vanishingly rare and the overwhelming benefit lies in the accidents prevented, not the few engineered. They may be right about the numbers. But the discomfort lingers, because for the first time we are being forced to inscribe our moral priorities into a machine in advance—and to live, quite literally, with the consequences.

5問合格 60%以上普通

新規登録 または ログイン が必要です

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

準1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

What is the main idea of the passage?

  • Car manufacturers have already agreed on a universal standard for ethical programming.
  • Autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic accidents once their software is fully developed.
  • The trolley problem has been definitively solved by a large international survey.
  • Self-driving cars force society to confront the difficult problem of which moral values to program into machines that may have to choose whom to harm.
Phrase

for the first time we are being forced to inscribe our moral priorities into a machine in advance

準1級読解技術倫理主旨把握
⚡ひとことで

自動運転車は『どの道徳的価値を機械に組み込むか』という難問を社会に突きつける、が全体の論旨。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Self-driving cars force society to confront the difficult problem of which moral values to program into machines that may have to choose whom to harm.」

正解

本文は (1) 自動運転は安全になるはずだ→ (2) しかし危害が不可避な状況で『誰を危険にさらすか決める』問題が残る→ (3) Moral Machine 調査で価値観が文化ごとに割れた→ (4) 誰の価値を符号化すべきか、という難問で締める。よって『機械に組み込む道徳的価値を社会が問われる』が主旨。

  • 「Autonomous vehicles will eliminate traffic accidents」

    = 事故を完全になくす ━ 本文は『はるかに少なく衝突するはず』と述べるが『完全になくす』とは言っておらず言い過ぎ。

  • 「trolley problem has been definitively solved」

    = トロッコ問題が決定的に解決された ━ 調査は『合意の欠如 (troubling lack of consensus)』を示しただけで解決していない、正反対。

  • 「manufacturers have already agreed on a universal standard」

    = メーカーが普遍的基準に既に合意 ━ 本文は『誰の価値を符号化すべきか』が未解決だと述べており合意の事実はない。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
stem from ~~に起因するMost accidents stem from human error.
in principle原則としてIt should, in principle, crash less.
refuse to dissolve解消しないA problem refuses to dissolve.
inscribe A into BAをBに刻み込むinscribe our priorities into a machine
live with the consequences結果を背負って生きるto live with the consequences
❝例文

  • Most accidents stem from human error.

    事故の大半は人為的ミスに起因する。

  • The problem refuses to dissolve.

    その問題は解消しようとしない。

  • We must inscribe our values into the system in advance.

    我々は価値観を前もってシステムに刻み込まねばならない。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

主旨設問は最終段の結論文を探す。本文は『But the discomfort lingers, because...』以降に著者の核心主張が来る型。極端な動詞 (eliminate/solved) を含む肢は要注意。

問 2

According to the passage, why should autonomous vehicles crash less often than human-driven ones?

  • Most accidents result from human error, and a machine does not become tired, drink, or get distracted by a phone.
  • Self-driving cars avoid roads where pedestrians are present.
  • Autonomous vehicles are legally restricted to lower speeds than human drivers.
  • Machines are programmed to stop completely whenever any risk arises.
Phrase

a machine that never tires, drinks, or glances at a phone should, in principle, crash far less often

準1級読解技術倫理詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

事故の大半は人為的ミス。疲れず・飲酒せず・スマホも見ない機械はその分衝突が減る。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Most accidents result from human error, and a machine does not become tired, drink, or get distracted by a phone.」

正解

第1段に most accidents stem from human error とあり、続けて a machine that never tires, drinks, or glances at a phone should ... crash far less often と理由を述べる。これを言い換えた『大半の事故は人為的ミスが原因で、機械は疲労・飲酒・スマホによる注意散漫がない』が正解。

  • 「Autonomous vehicles are legally restricted to much lower speeds than ordinary human drivers are allowed.」

    = 低速に制限されている ━ 速度制限の記述はない。論点はヒューマンエラーの不在。

  • 「stop completely whenever any risk arises」

    = 危険があれば必ず完全停止 ━ 本文にそのような挙動の記述はない、根拠なし。

  • 「avoid roads where pedestrians are present」

    = 歩行者のいる道を避ける ━ むしろ歩行者を巡る危機的状況が論点であり、回避するとは述べていない。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
stem from ~~に由来するAccidents stem from human error.
glance at ~~をちらっと見るglance at a phone
far less oftenはるかに少なくcrash far less often
never tire決して疲れないa machine that never tires
in principle原則としてshould, in principle, work
❝例文

  • Distracted drivers often glance at their phones.

    注意散漫な運転手はよくスマホをちらっと見る。

  • A tireless machine crashes far less often.

    疲れを知らない機械ははるかに少なく衝突する。

  • The error stems from fatigue, not the system.

    そのミスはシステムではなく疲労に起因する。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

detail 設問は本文の三連語 (tires, drinks, glances at a phone) を別表現 (tired, drink, distracted by a phone) に置換した肢が正解。原因 (human error) も併記される。

問 3

What did the Moral Machine survey reveal about people's choices?

  • Respondents worldwide consistently chose to spare the elderly over the young.
  • Preferences about whom to spare differed markedly from one culture to another.
  • The survey found that cultural background had no effect on people's judgments.
  • Nearly everyone agreed that the car should always protect its own passenger.
Phrase

Preferences diverged sharply along cultural lines

準1級読解技術倫理詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

Moral Machine 調査=誰を救うかの選好が文化ごとに大きく分かれた。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Preferences about whom to spare differed markedly from one culture to another.」

正解

第2段で the Moral Machine ... found a troubling lack of consensus と述べ、Preferences diverged sharply along cultural lines と続けて、若者か高齢者か・遵法者か無謀者かの選好が社会ごとに異なったと例示する。これを言い換えた『誰を救うかの選好が文化ごとに著しく異なった』が正解。

  • 「Nearly everyone agreed that the car should always protect its own passenger.」

    = 全員が乗員保護で一致 ━ 本文は『合意の欠如』を強調しており一致していない、正反対。

  • 「consistently chose to spare the elderly over the young」

    = 一貫して高齢者を若者より救った ━ 本文は spare the young over the elderly に傾く社会があったと述べ、しかも一貫していない。

  • 「cultural background had no effect」

    = 文化的背景は影響しなかった ━ diverged ... along cultural lines と明記されており逆。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
diverge along cultural lines文化的に分かれるPreferences diverged along cultural lines.
lack of consensus合意の欠如a troubling lack of consensus
be inclined to V~する傾向があるinclined to spare the young
spare A over BBよりAを助けるspare the young over the elderly
the law-abiding遵法者the law-abiding over the reckless
❝例文

  • Opinions diverged sharply along cultural lines.

    意見は文化的に大きく分かれた。

  • The survey revealed a troubling lack of consensus.

    その調査は厄介な合意の欠如を露わにした。

  • Some were inclined to spare the young over the elderly.

    若者を高齢者より助ける傾向の人もいた。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

別段落の detail 設問は固有名詞 (Moral Machine) を本文から探し、その直後の動詞句 (diverged ... along cultural lines) を言い換えた肢を選ぶ。『no effect』のような全否定肢は本文と矛盾しやすい。

残り2問は、解いて確かめられます

全5問すべてに、この形式の解説が付いています。 間違えた問題は記録され、あとから復習できます。

無料で登録して続きを解く

インストール不要・カード登録なし・いま全機能無料

この単元の講義を見る準1級の単元一覧準1級の用語集