Testing Minds, Opening Hearts

Wenona's philosophers tackle some of the current world's toughest questions.

The Ethics Olympiad is the 12-year-old brainchild of a Perth Philosophy teacher who wanted to build students’ critical thinking, collaboration and communication skills using real-world issues. It is now conducted everywhere from India to Canada and Hong Kong and this year featured a national-winning performance from some of Wenona’s finest student thinkers.

The team of Year 11 students Poppy, Clemency, Ruby, Annie, and Saoirse, emerged from Wenona's Debating program but they found the Ethics Olympiad demanded very different skills. Unlike debating, where students argue an assigned position, the Ethics Olympiad requires teams to defend the stance they believe to be right, as well as demonstrate a capacity to understand and articulate the reverse position.

The questions they grappled with would challenge seasoned philosophers: Is it ethical to fall in love with a chatbot? Should we edit Roald Dahl's works to remove outdated language? Can a community impose curfews on teenagers for the greater good?

"It's about articulating your intuition on a challenging topic, which is actually really hard," explained incoming Head Prefect, Poppy, while reflecting on one of the competition's more provocative cases about AI romantic relationships. "What's so interesting about the Ethics Olympiad is that it forces you to think about why something feels wrong, not just that it feels wrong," she said.

"In debating it's more about arguing one side," Clemency explained. "In ethics, it's very important that you're inclusive of all sides and especially you have to be incredibly respectful of the other team's arguments rather than trying to prove yours is better."

The competition format is as intellectually demanding as it sounds. Teams receive eight complex case studies covering everything from assisted dying to cultural relativism in food choices, with a month to research philosophical frameworks and ethical theories. But when competition day arrives, all notes are banned. Students must draw entirely from memory as they're presented with unseen questions and given just one minute to confer before delivering a five-minute team presentation.

What makes the format particularly sophisticated is its emphasis on nuance. Teams aren't only marked on their arguments, but on their ability to present counterpoints respectfully and explain why their position ultimately prevails. The marking scheme rewards philosophical depth, with students gaining points for referencing ethical theories and engaging meaningfully with opposing viewpoints.

"We had this technique that we learned from the team that competed last year when they were in Year 10, who were keen to give us tips. If we had something to say, we'd stick out a highlighter," Poppy explained, describing how the team managed their collaborative presentations. "So, if you were talking and running out of things to say, you could see who wanted to contribute next. It kept the conversation flowing naturally."

"We knew exactly what everyone's different strengths were," Poppy explained. " Saoirse was always really good at keeping our structure on track and timekeeping. Clem was exceptionally good under pressure and at articulating that intuition you have. Ruby has amazing knowledge of the law and was really good at building on people's points. Annie was brilliant at presenting counterpoints respectfully and bringing this calm energy when we were getting tricky questions."

The case studies themselves made for fascinating reading. The students considered issues such as whether parents should be forced to receive genetic information about their unborn children. They also weighed the ethics of editing classic literature for modern sensibilities, and considered whether cultural traditions justify practices that seem abhorrent to outsiders.

The experience had such a positive impact on the team that they now want to devote time to encouraging younger peers to take part next year. "It's a skill that's very useful and prevents you from getting locked into things like political echo chambers," Poppy observed. "It is an excellent exercise for learning to think more inclusively.”