Q. What is to be thought of the recently announced contest in which young men will be invited to risk their lives driving cars which are to be deliberately demolished for the entertainment of the spectators?

A. It is forbidden on moral grounds to engage in any form of activity which will involve danger to one's life without a sufficient reason. There is question here of an act, not morally wrong in itself, which will have two effects: one which will be good and desirable, the other, evil and not to be desired. Here the evil effect is the possible loss of life. Against this evil effect must be balanced the good effect which is hoped for. Account must be taken likewise of the degree to which one's life is endangered, the closeness of the possible loss of life with the cause to which it is attributed, the skill and experience of the one who endangers his life.

Applying these principles to the case in question, we note first of all that the evil effect, the loss of life by the operator of the car, would follow directly from the act of demolishing the car. The purpose of this activity is to provide entertainment for spectators, who will presumably pay large sums of money for admission to the contest. Considering only these two factors, it would seem that there is lack of proportion between the good effect and the evil effect. In other words, a person should not risk his life merely to provide entertainment for others. He may do so for a number of more serious reasons, for example, to save the life of another, or to advance the cause of science. Merely to entertain others, however, is not a purpose of sufficient importance to justify placing one's life in serious danger.

For a complete answer to the question proposed, we should determine especially the degree to which those who would take part in the contest would be actually placing their lives in danger. Records of auto accidents would suggest that the driver in a car that is about to be completely demolished has little chance of escaping without at least serious injury, if not loss of life. It is quite possible that this danger would be considerably diminished, first of all, by the fact that the drivers of the contest cars are alerted ahead of time to the dangers and can thus get set for them, and secondly, by their skillfulness in avoiding dangers which would be unavoidable for the ordinary person.

On the other hand, it would seem that, as the car is driven into a situation calculated to demolish it, the spectators will inevitably expect to see the driver emerge from the wreck in an injured condition, and will even be prepared to find him taken out dead. In other words, the thrill of watching a spectacle which is dangerous to life and limb is essentially a part of the entertainment. People are being invited to watch a contest in which they expect human beings to endanger their lives, and in which, at least from their point of view, loss of life is not a merely remote possibility.

The situation becomes even more serious as it appears that the contestants are not trained for the dangerous activity in which they will be engaged, but are solicited from the general population of young men. The only qualification is willingness to risk life and limb. There is no indication that there would be any screening of applicants which would lead to the acceptance of only those who might be skillful in this particular kind of situation.

In other kinds of sports, the danger to life is remote, and is greatly reduced by training and natural aptitude. Moreover, those who watch, for example, a football game, do not expect to witness the death of any of the participating athletes, and would be horrified if death or serious injury were to occur. This is not the case in the car demolishing contest. It is hard, therefore, to escape the conclusion that this kind of entertainment is morally wrong, and that those who promote it, participate in it or seek its entertainment value can have no justifying reason.