There are separate sets of features that you can't just glue together, they're not even offered together, you have to pay separately for the second set.
One set saves people, one set kills people. The set that kills people, doesn't save people.
You think it's ok to sell the set that kills people because they have a set thats save people.
I know it's not ok to sell features that kill people and don't save anyone. It'd be one thing if it could save people, but it doesn't. The other set does that.
This set just kills people. Doesn't save anyone.
Stop selling it.
Simple as that.
Only if all three of the following are true:
A) they both affect the same risk factor (Just because they're "separate" features and sold separately doesn't make this false. And the way the autopilot is so intertwined with the others, I don't think it's really fair to say they are truly separate features. They build upon each other.)
B) it's impossible to run the dangerous one without the safety one
C) running both is safer than running neither
If you want to make cars safer, then you should be insisting that all cars be safer. The car that kills people because it lacks any of these electronics is just as bad.
To elaborate on (A), with these particular features I don't see the car as causing distinct people to die compared to who it's saving. It's not trading between different groups of people in any meaningful way. It's just a single number of how many people die per mile. With other features you could get into that moral dilemma. With these features I don't think it does.
I basically agree with everything you said about saving some people and murdering others.
But "saving less people" is a totally different situation. If I donate some money to charity, and I'm asked to donate more money, it's okay for me to say no.
So the question is whether these features fall under "saving some people and killing others" or if they fall under "saving less people".
You believe it's the former, and I believe it's the latter.
Remember that even pure safety features are imperfect and they are subject to the butterfly effect. Anything you change about a car design will cause some shift in who dies while driving that car. You have to determine if there are really two separate risk groups, one sacrificed for the other, or if it's all really one risk group.
As a thought experiment, imagine we made a car that was all-around much safer, and then we let 14 year olds drive it. Well that actually happens, with mini-cars that have strict speed limits. (Usually they're legally not cars.) We could only allow normal licensed drivers to use them, and they'd be very safe! But then, purely for convenience, we let younger teenagers use them. Is that a moral abomination? Some of them are going to die. But I think it fits into the normal risk of driving, and as long as a 14 year old in one of those is safer than a normal driver in a normal car, I'm satisfied.