Autonomous vehicles (AVs) could reduce traffic accidents but may face ethical dilemmas, such as choosing between saving pedestrians or sacrificing passengers. Researchers conducted six online studies using Mechanical Turk participants to explore public attitudes toward utilitarian AVs, which prioritize saving more lives by sacrificing passengers. Participants generally approved of utilitarian AVs but preferred AVs that protect their own lives. They disapproved of enforcing utilitarian algorithms, which could delay AV adoption and increase casualties. Participants in the studies showed a strong moral preference for utilitarian AVs, but were less willing to buy such vehicles. This creates a social dilemma: while utilitarian AVs are morally preferable, people prefer AVs that protect them. Regulating AVs to be utilitarian may be necessary but counterproductive, as it could delay adoption and reduce safety benefits. The study highlights the need for a collective discussion on AV ethics, balancing moral principles with public acceptance. While utilitarian algorithms are morally sound, public resistance to such algorithms may hinder their implementation. Future research should address complex ethical decisions, including uncertainty, risk assessment, and liability. The findings emphasize the urgency of addressing algorithmic morality in AI, as AVs become more prevalent. Public opinion and social pressure may shift as the conversation progresses, but designing algorithms that reconcile moral values and personal interests remains challenging.Autonomous vehicles (AVs) could reduce traffic accidents but may face ethical dilemmas, such as choosing between saving pedestrians or sacrificing passengers. Researchers conducted six online studies using Mechanical Turk participants to explore public attitudes toward utilitarian AVs, which prioritize saving more lives by sacrificing passengers. Participants generally approved of utilitarian AVs but preferred AVs that protect their own lives. They disapproved of enforcing utilitarian algorithms, which could delay AV adoption and increase casualties. Participants in the studies showed a strong moral preference for utilitarian AVs, but were less willing to buy such vehicles. This creates a social dilemma: while utilitarian AVs are morally preferable, people prefer AVs that protect them. Regulating AVs to be utilitarian may be necessary but counterproductive, as it could delay adoption and reduce safety benefits. The study highlights the need for a collective discussion on AV ethics, balancing moral principles with public acceptance. While utilitarian algorithms are morally sound, public resistance to such algorithms may hinder their implementation. Future research should address complex ethical decisions, including uncertainty, risk assessment, and liability. The findings emphasize the urgency of addressing algorithmic morality in AI, as AVs become more prevalent. Public opinion and social pressure may shift as the conversation progresses, but designing algorithms that reconcile moral values and personal interests remains challenging.