Instigator / Pro

DeadFire27

1469

rating

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

Better arguments

Better sources

Better legibility

Better conduct

After 3 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

DeadFire27

Tags

Miscellaneous

Parameters

Publication date: 05.30.2021 05:47AM
Last updated date: 06.29.2021 04:06PM
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

Lord_Helix

1500

rating

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

DeadFire27

05.30.2021 07:56AM

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

Lord_Helix

05.30.2021 08:01AM

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

DeadFire27

05.30.2021 08:08AM

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

Lord_Helix

05.30.2021 08:12AM

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

DeadFire27

05.30.2021 09:20AM

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.

Lord_Helix

05.30.2021 09:30AM

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

Sum1hugme

06.29.2021 04:06PM

#10

-->

@Benjamin

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.

Benjamin

06.29.2021 04:05PM

-->

@Theweakeredge

@Undefeatable

What do you think?

Benjamin

06.29.2021 04:05PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

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.

Sum1hugme

06.29.2021 02:38PM

-->

@Benjamin

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.

Benjamin

06.29.2021 01:51PM

-->

@Sum1hugme

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

DeadFire27

05.31.2021 03:29AM

-->

@RationalMadman

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?

TheUnderdog

05.30.2021 08:47PM

-->

@DeadFire27

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.

Lord_Helix

05.30.2021 08:05AM

-->

@DeadFire27

Yep

DeadFire27

05.30.2021 08:04AM

-->

@Lord_Helix

I think there was some miscommunication............

Theweakeredge

05.30.2021 07:03AM

Looking forward to the kritik about utilitarianism, lmao

Bones

05.31.2021 04:27AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

I speculate whether the two debaters actually know each other....

RationalMadman

05.30.2021 07:02PM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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.

Nevets

05.30.2021 10:08AM

Criterion

Pro

Tie

Con

Points

Better arguments

3 point(s)

Better sources

2 point(s)

Better legibility

1 point(s)

Better conduct

1 point(s)

Reason:

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