PERC: make responsibility arguable

Editorial overview

PERC is run by the University of Oxford’s Uehiro Oxford Institute, whose work applies philosophical analysis to real-world ethical questions. The competition carries that institutional character into a school format: students are not asked merely to announce a moral position, but to identify the values, duties and consequences that make the position defensible.

The distinctive pressure comes from the word responsibility. A broad issue such as artificial intelligence, medical consent or intervention abroad becomes useful only when a team can say who may be responsible, what that responsibility requires, and what would count against its conclusion. That makes PERC best suited to students who enjoy sustained discussion and revision. It is less suitable for a group that wants to divide a script into isolated speaking parts and assemble them at the end.

Quick Facts

For current dates, eligibility and registration details, see the Practical Ethics and Responsibility Competition (PERC) competition page.

This guide was checked on 3 October 2026.

Review Evaluation

Rated Advanced. Success depends on choosing a genuinely arguable ethical problem, defining responsibility precisely, and defending the reasoning clearly on video and in live debate.

Responsibility is the hinge, not the theme

A weak starting point is a large topic: artificial intelligence is dangerous, governments should protect rights, or young people deserve autonomy. Each may lead somewhere, but none yet identifies the moral relationship that PERC wants a team to examine. A better question asks who owes what to whom, why that duty exists, and what limits it. The word responsibility should change the structure of the argument, not appear in the title and disappear from the reasoning.

Teams can test a possible question with four prompts. Who is the agent: an individual, institution, profession, company or state? Who bears the consequences? Is the responsibility legal, moral, professional or collective? What fact would make the team revise its answer? If students cannot answer those questions without immediately retreating to slogans, the topic is still too wide.

This narrowing process also protects the video from becoming a survey. A short film does not have room for every perspective on a social problem. It needs one clear claim, the strongest reason for it, a serious objection and a considered response. That is enough to show intellectual control. Listing ten concerns usually shows the opposite.

Build one argument the whole team can own

Teams have three to five students and require teacher support. That size is large enough for genuine disagreement but small enough for every voice to matter. The teacher can help the group organise meetings, test clarity and manage the submission process, but the ethical judgement should remain recognisably the students’ work.

Begin with a disagreement session before anyone writes a script. Ask each student to state the proposed conclusion in one sentence, then explain the best reason against it. Record the points of conflict. Those differences are useful: they reveal which terms need definition and which assumptions the group has not yet earned. Consensus reached too quickly often produces a bland video because no one has had to defend the central claim.

Next, assign argumentative roles rather than production roles. One student can own the factual background, another the moral principle, another the objection, and another the response. The team should then swap roles and challenge each section. By the time recording begins, every student should be able to reconstruct the whole case without reading the script. That shared ownership is more important than giving everyone the same number of seconds on screen.

Use the video as a test of reasoning

A 2–4 minute team video plus consent documentation, submitted electronically with teacher support. The time limit forces selection. A useful structure is simple: pose the ethical problem, define the relevant responsibility, present the main argument, answer one strong objection, and explain what follows in practice. The introduction should spend very little time telling viewers that the issue is important; the quality of the question and evidence should make that clear.

Production choices should serve comprehension. A diagram can separate several kinds of responsibility. A short scenario can expose a conflict between two values. On-screen wording can clarify a definition. But dramatic music, rapid montage and decorative footage cannot replace a missing premise. If an edit makes the reasoning harder to follow, it is not adding sophistication.

Review the rough cut against four official criteria: quality of argument, clarity, originality and team involvement. Students should watch once with the sound off, then read only the transcript, and finally view it as an ordinary audience member. The silent review tests whether visuals guide attention. The transcript review reveals leaps in logic. The ordinary viewing tests pace and whether the speakers sound like people thinking together rather than presenters reciting adjacent paragraphs.

Prepare for the move from editing to debate

The top five video teams are invited to Oxford for presentations and debates on 2027-03-23. That change of medium is one of the competition’s best features. Video permits retakes and tight control; debate exposes whether the team understands the argument beyond the recorded wording. Preparation should therefore include questions that were not answered in the film.

Create an objection bank. For every premise, write the most plausible challenge and one piece of evidence or reasoning that would answer it. Then run short drills in which a student must respond, pass to a teammate, or acknowledge that the objection identifies a real limit. The aim is not to sound invulnerable. A careful concession often shows more judgement than forcing a weak defence.

Teams should also practise explaining the argument at different lengths: twenty seconds, one minute and three minutes. Compression reveals the core claim, while expansion reveals whether the supporting structure is actually there. If every version depends on exactly the same memorised sentences, the group needs more discussion before polishing its delivery.

The reward matters less than the intellectual opportunity: testing an argument in front of researchers, guests and other students who have taken different moral positions seriously.

A workable school timetable

Entry is UK-only. Entry is Free. A supporting teacher contacts the organisers and submits the team video and consent forms by email or shared folder before 16:00 on 2027-01-04. Schools should leave enough time before that date for consent, file transfer and a last compliance check rather than treating upload day as part of the creative process.

A practical sequence is to spend the opening meetings choosing and narrowing the question, the middle period building the argument and testing objections, and the closing period scripting, recording and editing. Do not reverse that order. Early filming feels productive, but it locks the team into language before the reasoning has survived criticism.

The teacher’s most valuable checkpoint comes just before the script is locked. Ask the team to state its conclusion, define responsibility in its own words, name the strongest objection and explain why its response is adequate. If those answers are uncertain, another discussion is more useful than another camera take. If they are clear, production becomes much easier because the students know what every scene is doing.

Key Takeaways

• PERC is a good fit for students who enjoy moral disagreement enough to revise their first answer.
• The strongest topic is not the largest issue; it is the question that makes responsibility precise.
• Build the argument before filming, and make every team member capable of defending the whole case.
• Treat the video as the first test of clarity and the Oxford stage as a test of intellectual ownership.
• Teachers should protect time for critique, consent and submission checks without taking over the ethical judgement.

Sources checked

• https://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/perc
• https://practicalethics.web.ox.ac.uk/perc-how-to-take-part
• https://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/perc-final-2026
• https://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/about-us