Samuel Iglesias, “Ethical Biological Naturalism and the Case Against Moral Status for AIs”
Honourable Mentions: James French: How can we address the gender gap in anaesthesia and the wider medical workplace?
Kyle van Oosterum, “How Confucian Harmony Can Help Us Deal With Echo Chambers”
Pablo Neira, “Why Preventing Predation Can Be a Morally Right Cause for Effective Altruism?”
Winner: Avital Fried, “Criminal Confessions and Content-Sensitive Testimonial Injustice”
James Shearer, “Do we have an Obligation to Diversify our Media Consumption?”
Leora Sung presenting her paper
This, the final of the 9th Annual National Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics, was held on the 14th March in the lecture theatre of the Faculty of Philosophy, as well as online. During the final the four finalists presented their papers and ideas to an audience and responded to a short Q&A as the deciding round in the competition. A selection of the winning essays and honourable mentions will be published on this blog.
Lucy Simpson, “Why Our Actions Matter: The Case for Fluid Moral Status.”
Chase Mizzell presenting
Runner Up: Leora Urim Sung, “Should I Give or Save?”
Maria Rotaru, “Causal links and duties to past, present, and future generations: why and to whom do the affluent have moral obligations?”
Avital Fried the winner of the graduate category
Trenton Andrew Sewell, “Should Social Media Companies Use Artificial Intelligence to Automate Content Moderation on their Platforms and, if so, Under What Conditions?”
Please join us in congratulating all four of the finalists in the National Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics 2023, and in particular our winners, Lukas Joosten and Avital Fried. We would also like to thank our judges, Prof Roger Crisp, Prof Edward Harcourt and Dr Sarah Raskoff.
Winner: Lukas Joosten, “Turning up the Hedonic Treadmill: Is it Morally Impermissible for Parents to Give Their Children a Luxurious Standard of Living?”
Runner Up: Chase Mizzell, “Against Using AI to Influence Our Future Selves in Ways That Bypass or Subvert Rationality”
Tanae Rao, “Why the Responsibility Gap is Not a Compelling Objection to Lethal Autonomous Weapons”