Ethics Olympiad International Final

Congratulations to the boys for placing 16th overall.

We spoke with Bancheng about the Olympiad experience.

How did you get involved?

I initially became involved in Ethics Olympiad when my teachers encouraged students who enjoyed debating ideas and analysing complex issues to try out for the team. I was interested because it seemed different from traditional debating – it focuses less on ‘winning’ an argument, and more on collaborative reasoning and careful consideration of different perspectives. After joining the team, I found that the format pushed us to think more deeply about ethical problems rather than just defending a position.

How did you prepare for the Ethics Olympiad International final?

In preparation for the competition, our team spent a lot of time analysing the case set provided for the Olympiad. Each case raises a challenging ethical dilemma, so we worked together to identify the key moral questions, consider relevant ethical principles and think about the implications of different viewpoints. We discussed the cases as a group, challenged each other’s assumptions and refined our reasoning. Leading up to the final, preparation also involved practising how to communicate ideas clearly, responding thoughtfully to questions from other teams and learning how to engage respectfully with perspectives we might disagree with.

What is next on the horizon?

For now, the focus is preparing as well as possible for the next Olympiad. Beyond that, I think the experience itself is something we will continue to reflect on. Ethics Olympiad encourages a habit of thoughtful discussion that extends well beyond the competition, so the next step is really continuing to apply that mindset to new issues and contexts which will come as we prepare for the next competition.

What skills do you harness in the Olympiad that you see being useful in the future?

Ethics Olympiad develops several skills that are broadly useful. One is critical thinking – being able to break down complex problems and recognise the underlying ethical tensions. Another is collaborative discussion – rather than trying to defeat opposing arguments, we focus on building on others’ ideas and refining our reasoning together. It also strengthens communication skills, especially explaining complex ideas clearly and responding constructively to challenging questions. Finally, it encourages intellectual humility – the willingness to reconsider your position when confronted with strong reasoning from others.

What are some of the topics you analyse and discuss?

The cases often explore a wide range of ethical issues, including technology and artificial intelligence, environmental responsibility, justice and fairness, personal autonomy and social obligations. Many of the scenarios involve real-world dilemmas where values can conflict, for example, weighing up the wellbeing of two entirely different groups of people, or considering the ethical responsibilities that come with scientific and technological progress in AI.

What were your perspectives on the topics?

What I found most interesting was that many of the cases didn’t have a single clear answer. For example, in the rescue dilemma about choosing which spaceship to save, our discussions explored whether the morally right choice should prioritise saving the most lives or whether fairness means we should avoid treating people as numbers. In the case about naming children, we considered the tension between parental freedom and a child’s right not to be disadvantaged by their name.

Other cases raised questions about whether we should separate art from the moral character of the artist, whether cultural traditions like bullfighting can still be justified in modern society, and how civilians should ethically act in wartime when sharing intelligence could both help defend their country and endanger other civilians.

Some of the cases were closer to our own experiences, such as bullying and the ethical use of AI in the classroom, which led to discussions about responsibility, fairness and how technology should support rather than replace learning. Even the case about cruelty toward video game characters raised interesting questions about whether simulated actions reflect or influence real moral behaviour.

Across these discussions, my perspective often evolved as I heard other viewpoints. Rather than reaching a single ‘correct’ answer, the most valuable part was understanding why different people might reasonably disagree and learning how ethical principles – such as fairness, harm, responsibility and autonomy – can lead to different conclusions in complex situations.