Instigator / Pro
21
1469
rating
10
debates
40.0%
won
Topic
#3089
Classic Debate Topic: Self-Driving cars are Unethical
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After 3 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...
DeadFire27
Parameters
- 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
Contender / Con
2
1500
rating
1
debates
0.0%
won
Description
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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.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)
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.
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
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