Classic Debate Topic: Self-Driving cars are Unethical
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 3 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Utilitarianism: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. (Credit: Oxford Languages)
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)
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.)
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.BoPMeanings: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)
I speculate whether the two debaters actually know each other....
Absolute facepalm material. Free win.
If you report my vote, it will backfire. You are getting free wins from your IRL buddies, this is just pathetic.
Argument - Pro opens up with an argument regarding Utilitarianism which at first glance may appear to have nothing to do with the debate. He/she claims that: "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.", but provides absolutely no evidence that this is the case.
Con - Con does not rebut anything Pro wrote, and therefore I must assume that Con does in fact believe that Pros argument about Utilitarianism being a guide for the moral principles of self driving cars, is true.
Worse, Con comes out with a damn good argument which supports Pros case, and probably a better argument than Pro produced.
R2 - Pro decided to skip round 2, which may have been an error considering he/she had not cemented his/her round 1 argument with any scholastic support, and Con actually came out with the best argument so far, pointing out that self driving cars are good because they can be used to take an injured person to hospital.
R3 - Pro does point out in round 3 that an ambulance would be better. And also points out that an injured person may not be able to get to the car, which is a good hypothetic. Con responds with his/her own hypotheticals, which did not refute Pros claim that an ambulance would be preferable and that an injured person may not be able to get to the car.
Given that Con failed to rebut Pros round 1 argument, and provided the best argument for Pro, and failed to support his/her round 2 statement in round 3, the argument goes to Pro - Pro
Sources - Pro does provide a couple of sources to support his/her opinions regarding Utilitarianism, and Con provides not one single source. However I am reluctant to award Pro any points for his/her use of sourcing, as what really required a source was the claim that self driving cars use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles. However as Con refused to rebut Pros claim, then I guess Con believes that it is a fact that self driving cars use Utilitarianism as a guide for moral principles, making Pros sources in to why Utilitarianism is bad, after all. P.S I do not personally agree with Pro. I would have been Con for this debate. But I am not voting on my own opinion on the subject - Pro
S&G - Both as eloquent as each other - Tie
Conduct - Both conducted themselves impeccably - Tie
Yeah I didn't read the debate, just giving my two cents. My argument isn't just against Utilitarianism, but all of consequentialism, which encompasses all forms of Utilitarianism.
What do you think?
There are different types of utilitarian ethics. The moral duty towards the maximized benefit of humanity is still a moral duty. Regardless, to use merely "relying on utilitarianism" as an argument for something being immoral does not make much sense. Especially in the case of self-driving cars, wherein no human action is responsible for the result, meaning normal morality can't apply. Only the utilitarian benefits/cons of self-driving cars are relevant to the debate. If self-driving cars make car accidents fewer, then it is of course moral to save lives by allowing self-driving cars.
Utilitarianism reasons incorrectly about morality. So any morally good action done for utilitarian reasons will be amoral at best, since the motivation was one of inclination rather acting from than duty to the moral law.
OTHER DEBATES: Utilitarianism vs Kantian ethics, which is preferable
Deadfire: Self-driving cars are unethical because they really on utilitarianism
He is basically saying that utilitarian ethics is unethical
Look man, I didn't know they were bad. I came on here with the purpose to have fun.
I will do it fairly though, and make all my future "fun" debates unranked.
Hope that helps?
I support the right to a self driving car on the grounds that it is free choice, it is easier for driving, and it prevents 27000 or 90% of American accidents per year.
Yep
I think there was some miscommunication............
Looking forward to the kritik about utilitarianism, lmao