The more I think on this, the more I change my position.
I rebutted the comment you're responding to, but when considering the same scenario but with different specifics I came to their conclusion. Specifically, let's take out the car and make it an airplane flying over a populated area. Does the plane eject the pilot and crash in someone's house? I'd say no, the pilot knew the risk hopping in the plane, the guy at his breakfast table had no say.
But then, what about if there is no crosswalk? Does the pedestrian still get to claim "I had no say in the street being there so I can cross wherever I want"? Does the passenger get to say "I assessed the risk taking into account nobody could cross here"? At what point do we say that the pedestrian also took a calculated risk? Fundamentally if we say " always protect the pedestrian" we don't care if there's a crosswalk or not.
So at this point, I don't think there's a fundamental ethical axiom to be followed here, it is entirely situational. As long as we all know the rules beforehand and all calculate our own risks, any set of rules is OK. If we say "protect pedestrians at crosswalks, protect passengers otherwise" as long as the pedestrian knows this rule clearly, they're the one taking the risk. If we say "pedestrians can cross wherever they want whenever they want" we end up with the same scenario, everyone taking their own calculated risks. We just have to agree on the set of rules, whatever they are, which makes it an optimization problem, not an ethical one.
The moving vehicle presents the mortal threat to the pedestrian not the other way around. Therefore it is more ethical to require the threatening agent to take more precautions or suffer more harm.
I rebutted the comment you're responding to, but when considering the same scenario but with different specifics I came to their conclusion. Specifically, let's take out the car and make it an airplane flying over a populated area. Does the plane eject the pilot and crash in someone's house? I'd say no, the pilot knew the risk hopping in the plane, the guy at his breakfast table had no say.
But then, what about if there is no crosswalk? Does the pedestrian still get to claim "I had no say in the street being there so I can cross wherever I want"? Does the passenger get to say "I assessed the risk taking into account nobody could cross here"? At what point do we say that the pedestrian also took a calculated risk? Fundamentally if we say " always protect the pedestrian" we don't care if there's a crosswalk or not.
So at this point, I don't think there's a fundamental ethical axiom to be followed here, it is entirely situational. As long as we all know the rules beforehand and all calculate our own risks, any set of rules is OK. If we say "protect pedestrians at crosswalks, protect passengers otherwise" as long as the pedestrian knows this rule clearly, they're the one taking the risk. If we say "pedestrians can cross wherever they want whenever they want" we end up with the same scenario, everyone taking their own calculated risks. We just have to agree on the set of rules, whatever they are, which makes it an optimization problem, not an ethical one.