Was there an actual surge of ride-seeking right after the attack? If so, it's only an example of the system working as expected under unexpected circumstances. Sure, we may quibble with the morality of it, but isn't that the whole point of delegating decision-making to a statistical algorithm?
The point of delegating decision making to an algorithm should not be to maximise profit when people are dying or to absolve yourself from the responsibility of being a decent human being. Developers at Uber should be ashamed of the system they've built.
I doubt anybody who reckons themselves at risk of dying will choose not to hail an Uber because the price has spiked — one would expect demand to be almost totally inelastic under those circumstances.
For what it's worth my friends tried to get an Uber out of the area about 12-1am and they couldn't - kept cancelling. They got the night bus instead which worked fine.
I figured this was an automatic, statistical process and not a reflection of a company with ailing reputation as of late. I modified the title from the headline so it was less aggressive.
Technological perspective from the competent technologists here is a valuable one.
The system should, at the very least, notify a human when there's a sudden surge so someone can check why and override it in this sort of circumstance. Uber chose not to do that. They are responsible. This is not merely "technology".