Prompts for Dialexicon Vol. 4

Prompt 1

In recent years, self-driving car companies such as Tesla and Cruise have been under fire for their technology leading to hundreds of car accidents, some with fatal consequences. The rising popularity of autonomous technologies has raised many ethical questions. Who should take responsibility when a self-driving car or other form of autonomous vehicle fails, often with human consequences? How should we program autonomous vehicles to approach life-or-death decisions (i.e. to spare the driver or a pedestrian, in a scenario where only one can survive), and which philosophical frameworks should inform these decisions? Justify your claims. Feel free to focus on other forms of autonomous technologies other than vehicles.

Prompt 2

Is failing to do good the moral equivalent of doing wrong? In other words, is there a moral distinction between acts of omission and acts of commission? Should one be equally liable for both, or is there a meaningful distinction between the two, or does it entirely depend on the scenario in question? Consider this question in the context of medical ethics - is removing life support morally equivalent to administering a lethal dose of a drug? Or in the context of charity, where failing to donate to a cause could be considered neglecting another's suffering. Should our actions be evaluated solely based on their consequences or do the intentions and contexts surrounding these actions hold moral significance? Justify your claims.

Prompt 3

The flawed state of prison systems around the world, from the inhumane conditions of the mega-prisons used to tame gang violence in El Salvador to the high recidivism rates and failed 'war on drugs' of the American prison system have raised questions about what the right way to punish criminals is. Often, it seems that two key pillars of justice - retribution and rehabilitiation - come into stark conflict with each other. Should the primary aim of the justice system be to prioritize retribution or rehabilitation? If both ought to be considered, how should we strike a balance between the two? And to what extent should individuals be duly punished for their actions if their upbringing has significantly influenced their choices?

Prompt 4

Most people would agree that we have greater responsibilities towards our family and friends, as opposed to say, a random stranger. For instance, in a scenario where we could only save the life of a parent or that of a stranger, perhaps even the lives of ten strangers, most children would save their parent. If you agree with the claim that we have greater obligations towards certain individuals, provide a philosophical justification for why it is morally acceptable that we would prioritize the needs of our loved ones above those of a random stranger. If you disagree with this claim, articulate your reasons for why, family or stranger, everyone deserves equal treatment and acting in a way that unduly favors our loved ones is unjustifiable.

Prompt 5

Pick any relevant current question of your choice, take a stance, and provide a rigorous philosophical argument in favor.