Instigator / Pro
21
1490
rating
8
debates
50.0%
won
Topic

Classic Debate Topic: Self-Driving cars are Unethical

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Arguments points
9
0
Sources points
6
0
Spelling and grammar points
3
1
Conduct points
3
1

With 3 votes and 19 points ahead, the winner is ...

DeadFire27
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Miscellaneous
Time for argument
One week
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
10,000
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
~ 304 / 5,000

Self-Driving cars are unethical, on the basis that they have a utilitarian nature, which is not always ethical.

Ethical: relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these.

Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.

Round 1
Pro
Thank You Lord_Helix for accepting this debate, and welcome to DebateArt!

FRAMEWORK: 

PRO: Must prove with enough evidence that Self-Driving cars are morally unethical. 
CON: Must prove with enough evidence that Self-Driving cars are morally ethical. 

BoP

Meanings: 

Ethical: relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. (Credit: Oxford Languages)
Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. (Credit: Oxford Languages)

Argument 1: Utilitarianism Choices. 

Utilitarianism is a ethical view which believes that actions are right if they maximize pleasure for a majority. While not being a bad view, most people do not believe in this view, seeing as sometimes the Utilitarianism thing to do is morally unjustified, such as murder. 

A easy way to demonstrate this is the classic Trolley Problem:

Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley hurtling down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming. Even if they do spot it, they won’t be able to move out of the way in time.
As this disaster looms, you glance down and see a lever connected to the tracks. You realize that if you pull the lever, the tram will be diverted down a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers.
However, down this side track is one lone worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five? The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five? (theconversation.com)
            
A person following Utilitarianism would probably choose to pull the lever, and so will many others. But then, they offered a variation of the question: 
You are on a footbridge overlooking the track, where five people are tied down and the trolley is rushing toward them. There is no spur this time, but near you on the bridge is a chubby man. If you heave him over the side, he will fall on the track and his bulk will stop the trolley. He will die in the process. What do you do? (We presume your own body is too svelte to stop the trolley, should you be considering noble self-sacrifice.)
Now, the choice seems conflicting. For the person following Utilitarianism, the choice would be the same, kill one, save 5. However, this time, many people choose not to push the man. It seems that killing a person is more wrong than just flipping the lever. But why? A video to explain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yg16u_bzjPE&vl=mn

The overall conclusion is that Utilitarianism can be morally conflicting. How is this related to self-driving cars? They use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles. Therefore, morally unethical. 

Having no more basis on which to build my argument, I pass the mic to Lord_Helix. 

Deadfire27
Con
Self driving cars are bad, because one simple glitch can kill or hurt the people in and around the car. 

That’s all I’m going to say, because I’m bad at debates. 
Bye
Round 2
Pro
Thank you Lord_Helix.

Looking at CONS argument and the comments, I believe CON has misunderstood the basis of the debate, and has given a argument supporting me. So, I will skip this round to give CON time to present a proper counter argument. 

Deadfire27 
Con
Sorry about that, I got confused. But the reason that self driving cars are GOOD is because if someone got hurt and they really need to go to the hospital, they can use the car hitch can get them to the hospital quickly. This is very useful as when someone who is home alone, and they trip and get a fracture, they can use the car to easily get to the hospital.

That’s all imma say,
Bye
Round 3
Pro
Thank You CON:

My opponent has (luckily) provided a, if short, proper argument. So, my final argument will be rebutting the one argument and providing a conclusion for the debate. 

FRAMEWORK: 

PRO: Must prove with enough evidence that Self-Driving cars are morally unethical. 
CON: Must prove with enough evidence that Self-Driving cars are morally ethical. 

BoP

Meanings: 

Ethical: relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. (Credit: Oxford Languages)
Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. (Credit: Oxford Languages)
 
Rebuttal: 

While CON does raise a good argument, injured people could easily call and ambulance, or a taxi to drive them to the hospital. Actually, a self-driving car would be slower, seeing as the person would have a hard time getting in to the car. So, CON's argument is rebutted

Conclusion: 
While being a faster debate than I expected, it was nice to get some practice in.

Thank you CON. 
Con
Very good point PRO, but if the injured person has no phone or it has been drained of charge, the person has no choice but to use the car. And it a thief has stolen someone’s phone, what are they going to do? Call the cops on their imaginary phone, or use the car to go to the police station?

Thanks,
Bye