Ethics Bowl Cases 1-8
Case # 1: Intellectual Property (AI) 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. Do artworks produced by an AI deserve copyright protection? -----Artwork produced by AI does not deserve copyright protection--- Who, if anyone, should have control over the artwork once it is produced: the creator of the AI, the artists whose work the AI "learned" from, or the individual whose verbal prompt generated the piece? If control is to be shared between multiple parties, how would that function? -----Only the artists whose work the AI "learned" from should have control over the artwork.----- How should society respond to the rapid advances in technology which invite revision to existing laws, practices, etc.? -----a. REVISIONS: regulate AI programming to come from images in the public domain------ ------b. Society should respond by ultimately valuing human creation above that of AI----- 2. ----AI art should only take information and images that are in the public domain( consent of artist)----- -Sources and creators should ALWAYS be credited, but AI, which takes information from the entire web, bypasses this -By having AI art come solely from images in the public domain, we ensure that artists have implied consent for their art to be used to inform AI programming ------AI art is not art → Art has inherent human value, so AI will never be the original creator------ 3. -----Kant's Categorical Imperative of Universalizability------- if everyone used private art w/out citing like AI then true nature of art is essentially degraded, -Acknowledging the original creators and sources is "being apart of the intellectual conversation" AI cant do that -framework introduces the maxim that work generated by AI should always be credited to these individuals - extend to written works
Case # 8: gift conversion 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. Do you agree that Amazon's patent threatens to undermine the value of gift giving? --w/ the current structure of Amazon's patent, values of gift giving such as authenticity and honesty are undermined.-- What's the point of exchanging gifts? Why do we do it? What meaning does gift giving bring to our lives -- Gifts serve as a reflection of gift givers (such as w/ their tastes and values) and show their thoughtfulness. Amazon's patent treats gifts as if they are considered without any emotional or sentimental value. Gifts themselves are used to show consideration of an individual's interests and desires. Other values: respect obligation/reciprocity to maintain a relationship or social norm-- To what extent, if any, are companies like Amazon responsible for the effects that their interface may have on social practices, including the practice of gift exchange? --They have the moral responsibility to uphold values of gift giving/exchange, and if their patent undermines those values, they have the obligation to either change it or get rid of it. (However there is also the concern that this is already a pre existing problem and the patent just exacerbates that)-- 2. w/ Amazon's patent, values of gift giving are undermined and so its unethical. Gift giving strengthens relationships, and the way Amazon's patent exchanges gifts disregards the values associated w/ gift giving. 3. CARE ETHICS: w/ an emphasis on the value of honesty MENTION RECIPROCITY AUTHENTICITY OBLIGATION + APPRECIATION should be a care for the recipient of the gift as well as the giver of it. Gifts activate brain's reward center )for giver/receiver)releases dopamine, increases self worth + self esteem However this patent encourages relationships built on dishonesty so the original values of the gift are not associated and undermined w/ the pate
Case # 2: Doomsday 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. If performing some action would be morally wrong, is it ever morally permissible to intend to perform the action, threaten to perform it, or lead others to believe or suspect that you might perform it? ---Intimidation is not more morally permissible than an immoral action. Intimidation is still a characteristic of hostility.--- When the most likely way of averting a morally catastrophic outcome requires acting in a way that violates a moral rule, should you ever perform this action? ---Yes, it should be performed, but it shall be performed out of practicality; it will never be morally justified---- If there were a nuclear holocaust causing most life on earth to go extinct, would it be bad primarily because it would kill currently existing individuals, or primarily because it precludes the existence—and potential flourishing—of future individuals, civilizations, and/or non-human species? ---The killing of current individuals (this is causing the most unhappiness under a utilitarian perspective)--- 2. Nuclear deterrence saves lives, prevents a nuclear-holocaust level of destruction, but that doesnt mean it's inherently ethical. What would be ethical is to abolition of all aspects of military intimidation + hostility 3. Distinguish: ---UTILITARIANISM :Practically, nuclear deterrence saves the most people--it's effective.(mostly) But that's not ethical--- - realistically, w/ global tension and conflict, no country is gonna give up all their nuclear power, so the threat of mutually assured destruction is what is providing the most happiness for the most amt of ppl ---- KANT: any existence of a military or violent military action is unethical ----- -KANT states that there is NO EXCEPTION for immoral behavior, military and international conflict cannot be exempt from morality No military intimidation or host
Case # 4: Dont bank on it 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. Is there any justification for a private institution to limit/bar the ability of lawful citizens to use their services? When is it justifiable for the government to collaborate with financial services to disrupt the activity of private individuals? When is it not? When the government initiates a state of exception, what restrictions on its power, if any, should remain in place? 2. 3.
Case # 5: tears of the koroks 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. Is there anything morally wrong with acts of cruelty toward video game characters who don't actually exist? Why or why not? Would it make a difference if the character treated cruelly was an avatar of another player? Why or why not? --- Does the fact that The Legend of Zelda series is marketed to young children make a moral difference to your thinking about this issue? Why or why not? ----It makes a moral difference in how creators are using violence as a means to keep children specifically entertained on their videos---- Would it make a difference to your consideration if the Koroks were revealed to be the villains (and not just a class of side characters) of The Legend of Zelda series? What makes people villains? ---make a distinction between genocide and violence, then yes, it would make a difference--- 2. ... 3. FRAMEWORK: Kant - deontology(categorical imperative) --If it is okay to commit genocide virtually - same must be applied to every other situation --Within deontology constricts, letting children and others commit high levels of violence in a video game, gives the okay to do the same in real life (because it must apply to everyone and everything) CONSEQUENTIALISM ---Although it may be fun or exciting for the users during the actual process of playing the game, it can have severe consequences--- LIST ALL FORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCES: - - - -
Case # 6: thats debatable 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. What are the responsibilities, if any, of social media platforms that enable the spread of disinformation? --- Social media platforms have the moral responsibility to not spread disinformation and counteract it. While not everything can be deleted or censored, platforms can still add warnings to remind used that the information could be false.--- Are there certain ideas, like conspiracy theories, that should not be engaged or debated? Why or why not? ---There is a difference between engaging or debating an idea, and there is a difference between publicly and privately debating them. Topics such as conspiracy theories can be debated in private, but when it is done publicly, there should be guidelines as to what people need to follow to engage in healthy discourse.-- How do we decide which ideas are open for debate, and which ideas are closed? ---Debate tests ideas and allows for intellectual conversations which is vital to human growth and development, HOWEVER some things are plain fact and should not be debated on a large public scale bc that can validate plain fiction. There are other ways to educate.-- 2. 3.
Case # 3: Til death 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. When, if ever, is it permissible to deceive someone for their own good? --If the person's care is being held to the highest standard, only then is it morally permissible to lie. If lying limits the autonomy of another person, then it is morally impermissible.-- Isaac considers a couple "foundations of marriage." What do you make of his proposals of self-disclosure and selfless serving? What else might serve as the foundation of such a relationship? --Co-existence, but they have their own autonomy and individuality. Therefore, it is impermissible to lie to limit someone's individual autonomy.-- When might duties to serve others override duties to broader ethical principles? ---Does it even serve Ella? In this case, care should be at the forefront, if 'serving' is violating that care then it should not be permissible.--- How might Issac's duty to share the information with Ella change if his relationship to her changed? ---It would not change anything (for one thing, HIPAA says never lie to patient)--- 2. Isaac lying undermines his overall relationship with Ella + violates the level of care he inherently possesses as her husband. also limits Ella's self-autonomy, bc Isaac is making the decision to withhold information that affects her choices. Similarly, Ella has the obligation to not burden Isaac as the only person who tells her life altering information 3. ---Care ethics w/ emphasis on foundations of marriage and maximizing care or both ppl--- -Maximizing care for Isaac would entail that he shouldnt be burdened with the obligation to lie continuously or be ellas sole source of info - Maximizing care for ella would entail not lying to her abt things that effect er decision making and overall autonomy --FOUNDATIONS: honestly/ full disclosure, autonomy, and sense of reliance on eachother--
Case # 7: pain au chocolat 1. Q's 2. overall claim 3. framework+application to case
1. Who, if anyone, should be responsible for constraining and regulating children's dietary choices? --Parents, school and government all have a responsibility of care in making sure children are healthy.- Do public schools have a responsibility to ensure the nutritional health of their students? Why or why not? --Yes, kids spend a significant amount of time in school and while they are there they should be receiving meals that are healthy and nutritious. Especially low income children who might not be able to get that elsewhere. Government has an obligation to supplement public schools with the means to provide nutritious foods.-- To what extent if any should the desires of the children themselves be taken into account when it comes to regulating their dietary intake? ---While care for the overall health of the children should be held at the utmost importance, so should care for their happiness/ relationship with food. A focus on lessening stigmas surrounding 'good' and 'bad' foods should be implemented.-- 2.Ultimately, Parents, schools, and the government all have an obligation to care for the nutritional health of children to ensure kids have healthy food options but don't feel restricted in eating what they like 3. CARE ETHICS - emphasis on care for health of children -obligation/ responsibility of care from school parents and government -emphasis on care for happiness and mental well being of children A focus on care for children from these 3 entities ensures that children are getting the nutrition they need including children who wouldn't get it otherwise. Care ethics also allows for the happiness of children to be considered and making sure they don't develop bad relationships w/ food.
Case # 4: Dont bank on it 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. 5.
Case # 5: tears of the koroks 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. 5.
Case # 6: thats debatable 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. 5.
Case # 1: Intellectual Property (AI) 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. ----AI generates work based on anything on the internet----- -----The Copyright Office ruled that "human authorship is essential to a copyright claim"----- -March 2023, the Copyright Office released guidance stating that, when AI 'determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.'" ------Commercial design always has a library of designs, images, and templates free for use in the public domain----- - AI works should work the same way 5. counter: humans subconsciously pull from many diff sources of inspo when creating art how is ai any different? REBUTTAL: a. Every human has different connections in their brain and biochemical reactions to create and activate those connections. AI does not have the complexity to replicate that process so therefore the human process of creation is non existent and cant be compared b. humans cite their work when smth is obviously inspired from another ai doesnt POSSIBLE INTRO :The Meaning of Art -The humanity of art is the ultimate value of art -Expression + cultural preservation -Throughout history, art has been a way for people to express their emotions, lifestyle, history, etc. when they were even unable to write- it's an important way to express human emotions -It's intrinsic within humans to automatically turn to art when they don't know how to express themselves
Case # 8: gift conversion 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. -The patent exchanges gifts without giving the original sender notice and exchanges it for something the receiver pre programs in a wishlist. This creates dishonesty in a relationship and undermines the authenticity of a relationship. -The exchange is made to be as equal as possible in terms of what is being exchanged. Based on quantity, monetary value, timing, and strength of the product (gift) can be claimed as a gift certificate or a different gift ------Gifts activate the brain's reward center (for the giver, and if the receiver is satisfied by it them too). This releases dopamine and increases self worth and self esteem.------ 5.
Case # 7: pain au chocolat 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. ... 5. How do you balance who should have the responsibility? ---During school, the schools have responsibility for the kids that are in their care - at home: parents--- This could make kids develop bad relationships w/ food ----Up to schools and parents to help children cultivate healthy relationship w/ food and up to government to supplement the resources--- Could increase the amount of environmental waste --- if stigmas are lessened when children won't have as negative a view on certain foods and won't throw it away---
Case # 2: Doomsday 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. ... 5. ... START ARGUMENT explaining why Nuclear deterrence works and saves lives, is the best practical solution → prevents conflict, but that DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ETHICAL. Fighting hostility with hostility is not ethical even if it saves lives. Introduce KANT: no sort of intimidation-based or hostile military action will ever be ethical
Case # 3: Til death 4. evidence 5. counter +reb
4. Surprise party: ex of a lie that is permissible because it's not continual and it's not affecting anyones autonomy/ personal choices or violating anyones care 5. The placebo effect. If you tell her she will be ok it might improve her health in some way. REBUTTAL: It's terminal, even if it helped, it is still her choice , and moral obligation to tell truth If this is Isaac's way of coping, then would it be better for him to keep lying? REBUTTAL: Same thing we said above