Practical Ethics and Responsibility Competition

You can talk about any ethical problem you like, as long as responsibility is involved. But if you’re having trouble, here are some suggestions to get you started. 

-  Who is responsible if AI harms people, or if Chat-GPT spreads lies?
-  Should you be held responsible for being unhealthy (e.g. because you’re unvaccinated, obese, or you smoke)? If it’s your fault you’re unhealthy, does this mean you forfeit a right to healthcare?
-  Are individuals responsible for other people’s health? What does this mean for our obligations—such as trying to stay healthy, avoiding antibiotics, or getting vaccinated?
-  Do celebrities have a responsibility to set good moral examples?
-  Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
-  How are we responsible as individuals for the environment? 
-  Is a bad upbringing an excuse for committing crimes?
-  Do we have free will? Are we responsible for our own behaviour? 
-  Do workers have an obligation to be 'whistle-blowers', or is their main responsibility to their employer?
-  Are producers of video games responsible if they inspire violence?
-  Who is responsible for the global spread of infectious diseases?
-  If very ill patients want to die, should doctors be held responsible if they help them? 
-  Are people who eat meat responsible for the welfare of farmed animals? 
-  Should individual soldiers be held responsible for their behaviour during war? 
-  Should there be limits on how we can punish people who do wrong? 
-  Are we responsible for the lives of people who will not exist until after we have died?
-  Are scientists responsible for how other people use their discoveries?
-  Can we be responsible for our unconscious biases, such as unconscious racism? 
-  Should creators (e.g., authors, artists, etc.) get paid for the use of their content in training AI? Should they get credit for outputs of AI that is relevantly influenced by their content?
-  Should large investors (e.g., universities, retirement funds, etc.) divest from companies profiting from unjust wars?  

If you’re thinking about entering the Responsibility and Ethics competition, we’d like to offer some tips for making your video entry as good as it can be!

What is an ‘argument’?
People use the word ‘argument’ in different ways. Sometimes it’s used to refer to people fighting with each other in a heated way.
That’s not what we mean by an ‘argument’ in philosophy or in this competition. Instead, an argument uses logic and reasons to persuade others to accept a particular conclusion or point of view. So when you offer an argument, you offer reasons, and show how those reasons support what you are arguing. 

What you are trying to argue for is called a conclusion. For instance, your conclusion might be: People shouldn’t eat meat. 
By itself, that’s not an argument; it’s just someone expressing their view. To turn it into an argument you need to support it with some reasons (also called ‘premises’). For example: 

1)    There’s no morally relevant difference between animal pain and human pain, 
2)    So, it’s just as wrong to cause animals pain as it is to cause humans pain. 
3)    Farming animals for meat causes them pain. 
4)    Eating meat causes farming animals for meat
5)    So eating meat is wrong

You probably noticed that these are all statements too, and some of them might need supporting with further arguments. You could keep going like this forever, but you’ll run out of time, and your audience will run out of patience! So, you probably want to start with claims that are uncontroversial or well-established (Premises 3 and 4) and give arguments for the claims that are more likely to be rejected by your audience (Premises 1 and 2). 

A good argument makes it clear how the premises support the conclusion. It’s great to have facts and figures to back up your case – but you need to show us how those facts and figures support your argument. 

And remember, this is an ethics competition. While facts are important, we also want to hear some ethical arguments. 

Ethical arguments
Ethical arguments aren’t just about what’s actually going on in the world; they also tell us how things should be: they are about what’s right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral. 

There are several ways to make an ethical argument, including: 
•    Drawing an analogy. Explain how the ethical claim you are making (like ‘killing animals is wrong’) is relevantly similar to an ethical claim that lots of people accept. Perhaps you think killing animals is ethically similar to killing humans. If so, that would be a good ethical argument against it. 
•    Showing that the arguments which could be used against you lead to unacceptable conclusions: 
    “If we say it’s OK to kill animals just because they aren’t as clever as we are, that implies that it’s OK to kill infants too, because they aren’t as clever as we are either”. 
Make sure that this unacceptable implication really is unacceptable! 
•    Showing how your conclusion is supported by widely accepted principles. Maybe you think that most people accept the principle “Don’t kill innocents for fun”. Do animals count as ‘innocents’? Does the pleasure people get from eating them count as ‘fun’? Other ethical principles might include: appealing to human (or animal) rights; explaining why what you are supporting is more fair or more just than alternatives. 
•    Show that the idea you support would have good consequences. For example you could show that it will make people happier or healthier, or that it will lead to benefits for society.
•    Considering possible objections. Think: what might a reasonable person who disagrees with you say in response? One way to strengthen your argument is to show how the best responses someone might make don’t succeed. 
Even if you don’t consider every possible objection in your video, it’s a helpful way to make your argument better. 

Responsibility 
Remember, we want to hear about the idea of responsibility in your videos, and how it applies to a practical ethics issue. 
Just like ‘argument’, ‘responsibility’ can be used in several different ways: 
•    Causal responsibility: this just means that one thing caused another. 
Think of a line of dominoes. One domino falling will hit another and cause the next one in the line to fall. 
    “The candle tipped over, so it was responsible for the fire”.  
•    Role responsibility: Your job or social role means that a particular outcome is something you need to take care of, whether you caused it or not. 
    “A doctor is responsible for the health of their patients”. 
    “All of us are responsible for combatting climate change”. 
•    Liability responsibility: This is usually applied only to people or groups. It means that the relevant person can be held accountable, and maybe blamed or praised, for an outcome. 
    “You knew what you were doing when you pushed him: you are responsible for his injuries!”
Usually we would think that if someone is liable, they either have to have caused an outcome, or have role responsibility for it. However, that might not be enough. 
I might cause your injury because I knocked you over. But if I was pushed, then there was nothing I could do about it. So maybe I need to have some kind of control over my behaviour to be liable. 

A teacher might have ‘role responsibility’ to stop their students cheating in tests. But if a student can find a really clever way to cheat, which the teacher has no chance of detecting, it might be unfair to hold the teacher liable. So maybe liability requires that I knew, or could have known, what was happening and that it was wrong. 

Some final tips…
•    Don’t feel the need to include as many arguments as possible in support of your conclusion in your video. It’s much better to be selective and only pick the most persuasive points you can think of, explaining clearly why you think they support your conclusion, than to list lots and lots of arguments, some of which aren’t very persuasive or aren’t well-explained.

•   Remember not to overstate your case. We’re not expecting you to prove beyond all doubt that your conclusion is right. It’s enough that, on balance, your conclusion looks more plausible than others. A good argument for a ‘modest’ conclusion (e.g. ‘We should probably stop eating meat’) is better than a bad argument for a ‘strong’ conclusion (e.g. ‘It’s just obvious that animals don’t matter at all’). 

•    Be clear about what you are doing. Your audience can’t read your mind, so it’s important to tell us what you think is going on at any point in your argument. For instance, the following kind of sentences might be helpful: 
    “So, we’ve just shown you that we have ethical reasons not to cause animals pain for no good reason. Now we’re going to explain why eating meat doesn’t count as a good reason”. 
    “We’ve accepted that animals can feel pain. However, we’re now going to argue that it’s much more important to benefit humans than animals, and that this means it’s ethically acceptable to eat meat”. 

•    Be generous to those who disagree with you. As we said above, part of your argument might involve thinking about possible objections or responses, and in turn responding to them. But be careful: it doesn’t look good if you raise obviously bad arguments, and then easily defeat them. It is much better to think of the very best arguments someone on the other side might make, and to give plausible responses even if that means you can’t prove that your view is the only possible way to go. 

And finally: 
•    Pick a topic that you are interested in, and passionate about! 
 

Competition launch date: 12th September 2024
Closing date for video entries: 4pm on Monday 6th January 2025
Video winners are announced: mid-February 2025 
Ethics and Responsibility Schools' Day: Tuesday 25th March 2025

If you have a question please email Dr Joanna Demaree-Cotton at joanna.demaree-cotton@philosophy.ox.ac.uk or Dr Gabriel de Marco at gabriel.demarco@philosophy.ox.ac.uk. 

Practical Ethics and Responsibility Competition: Terms & Conditions

By entering the Uehiro Oxford Institute’s Practical Ethics and Responsibility Competition, you agree to accept the following T&Cs. 

Terms of Entry
1.    Entry to the Uehiro Oxford Institute's Practical Ethics and Responsibility Competition is free of charge. The Competition is funded by the Uehiro Oxford Institute.
2.    All video entries must be original and produced by the teams. Any videos that feature plagiarised material will be disqualified. Copyright must be obtained if videos feature pre-existing material.
3.    Videos must be on a topic in practical ethics and relating to responsibility.
4.    Videos should be between two and four minutes long. Videos that have been speeded up to include more material within the time allocation will be disqualified. 
5.    The Competition closing date is 4pm on the 6th January 2025 and late entries will not be considered. 
6.    The Competition is open to entrants from anywhere in the world, but please be aware that we cannot fund travel to Oxford for international participants if you are successful in the video competition.
7.    Entrants must be pursuing secondary education and be in Year 11, 12 or 13 (S4, S5 and S6 in Scotland, and Year 12, 13 and 14 in Northern Ireland) or the international equivalent (typically ages 15-18, but please do contact the organisers if you wish to check). Teams should consist of no fewer than three and no more than five persons.

Video Selection
1.    Winning videos will be selected by the judging panel based on the following criteria:

a.    Argument: Does the argument make sense? Is it well supported?
b.    Clarity: Is it clear what conclusion is being argued for? Is it clear how the conclusion is supported by factual or ethical premises?
c.    Originality: Does the argument offer something unusual or new to the debate?
d.    Involvement: Are all team members well represented in the video?

2.    The judging panel will be comprised of researchers from the Uehiro Oxford Institute and special guests.
3.    The judges’ decision is final. 
4.    Selected teams (henceforth known as ‘debate participants’) will be contacted during February 2025.
5.    Selected videos will be featured on the Uehiro Oxford Institute’s web page, and images may be used in the Institute's promotional materials. 

The Schools Day
1.    The event will take place in Oxford, UK, on the 25th March 2025, unless COVID-related restrictions or other global health concerns require the event to move online. 
2.    There is no alternative prize available if debate participants are unable to attend the debate. 
3.    Reasonable travel costs may be reimbursed for UK-based debate participants if necessary.
4.    Accommodation costs may be reimbursed for UK-based debate participants if accommodation is required on the preceding Monday night due to length of journey, at the discretion of the Uehiro Oxford Institute. Please discuss with the Institute in advance of any booking. 
5.    Debate winners will receive a cash prize of £250 as a team. The second placed team will receive £150 as a team, and the third placed team will receive £50 as a team. Prizes will be paid directly to the winning schools.
6.    The judging panel will be comprised of researchers from the Uehiro Oxford Institute and special guests.
7.    The judges’ decision is final. 
8.    Videos and photographs may be taken during the event, for marketing and communications purposes. Images may be used in the Institute's promotional materials, such as the annual report, social media and website entries.