Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to Episode 17 of Think Like a Debater.

One class of debate concerns policy: Should junk food be taxed? Should inheritance tax rise? Should casinos open? Should disposable tableware be banned? Should euthanasia be legalized? Should the age of criminal responsibility fall? Should companies pay pollution taxes? Should real-estate restrictions be reduced? Should safe-haven boxes for abandoned infants be established? Should the death penalty be abolished or introduced?

Another class concerns values: Is human nature good or evil? Is money the root of all evil? Is euthanasia humane? Is killing one to save a hundred just?

Can you feel the difference?

Some examples deliberately sound similar. ‘Should euthanasia be legalized?’ is policy; ‘Is euthanasia humane?’ is value.

Or suppose 101 shipwreck survivors reach an island without food. While awaiting rescue, should they kill one person as food to raise the other hundred’s chance of survival?

In real life, should Singapore relax pandemic controls for international entry and social gatherings while accepting a temporary rise in cases and deaths? Should it ‘sacrifice one to save a hundred’?

When we propose a concrete action and ask whether to take it, the debate is policy. Whether sacrificing one to save a hundred is just is a value debate.

Both tracks in the trolley problem have moral difficulties. Understanding morality is a value question.

Policymakers do consider values, but must weigh values and interests and turn them into a decision about action.

Today we introduce a policy-analysis framework:need, cause, solvency, and cost-benefit.It helps us understand public policy and decisions in work and life: whether to add a product feature or leave a job for graduate school.

Begin with the basics.