The following guest analysis is by Michael Andersen, longtime ethics bowl supporter, Ethics Club Adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics, Vancouver, WA, and regular EthicsBowl.org contributor. Thank you once again, Michael, for your superb analysis! This is actually from a PDF Michael created for his team, and is an excellent example of engaging a team before a coaching session, and leaving them with ample resources for further reflection. And sharing it publicly during the season is also a wonderful example of putting collaboration before competition. The spirit of the ethics bowl is strong with this one!
Good morning, philosophers. I hope that you had a restful Thanksgiving Break. Our case for discussion this week will be Case #3. “Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting” — a fictional one (but based in a realistic scenario) involving the ethics of ghosting via dating apps, as well as the gender norms and dynamics that sometimes affect the way individuals approach online dating. I’ve uploaded the case session PDF below, and please read the case and the Discussion Qs therein. Also, this week I’ve started a mini-section in the PDF called “Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case” in which I try to help you think about the central moral dimension involved–the answer to the questions What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue? You might also find useful the two (optional) PSU Ethics Bowl videos “Care Ethics for Ethics Bowl” and “Virtue Ethics for Ethics Bowl,” both of which present moral frameworks that seem relevant to this case. Check them out if you have time.
BONUS: Some of you might want to see another example of an Ethics Bowl round. If so, I’ve linked below the Championship Match of the 2021 National High School Ethics Bowl, between Kent Place High School (NJ) and University High School (CA). The first half of the round discusses case #8 “Killer Art” (see National Case set link below), and the Moderator’s Q appears on screen @ min. 4:21. The second half (beginning @ min. 43:05) discusses case #10 “Do You See What I See?”, and the Moderator’s Q appears on screen @ min. 43:31.
Today’s Discussion Topic
⦾ Are there times it’s permissible to ghost? Or is it permissible for some people to ghost, even if it’s not okay for others to do the same?
⦾ How do gender norms and dynamics affect the way that individuals should approach dating?
⦾ Do the same rules apply to everyone? Or is it permissible for some people to behave in certain ways while it would be impermissible for others to do the same?
Pre-Discussion Resources
- (Video) “What Psychologists Can Tell You About Ghosting” @ SciShow Psych (6-24-19). “Ghosting is when someone terminates a relationship by ending communications abruptly and without explanation. Whether or not you’d consider ghosting someone might have a lot to do with how you view relationships in general.” [11:08]
NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #3. Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting
Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case
What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue?
Consider respect and dignity as two common moral intuitions at play in a dating encounter (whether it’s the initial or a follow up encounter), but these often conflict with a moral principle of autonomy—i.e., the right or condition of self-government. In the modern world (at least in many cultures), we reserve the right to decide for ourselves who we will date, for how long, and under what circumstances. What respect and dignity obligations do we owe to people in a dating situation? Shouldn’t there be some limits to our exercising of our personal autonomy in dating situations? In a face-to-face encounter, assuming we desire to end the option to date, and also assuming that one’s immediate safety isn’t at stake, most people would probably assume a minimum standard of basic decency is necessary. That is, unless the person under consideration is behaving abusively or in a rude manner, that person deserves a basic standard of respect and dignity in the way we turn down their offer(s) to date.
We’re all human, after all, and maintaining a climate of respect and dignity for all ensures more healthy social relations for everyone. In the context of a prospective date, simply dismissing or ignoring a person in a face-to-face encounter might be tolerated in some social circles, but it’s hardly admirable, as it results in people feeling disrespected and their dignity as a person violated. If only for the practical reason that others might treat us disrespectfully, many see a basic standard of respect and dignity as a reciprocal duty we owe to each other to make society work, and to make dating even possible. (If everyone ghosted prospective dates regularly, then no one would take the risk to date.) In the case description, Imani reflects that “She’s been ghosted before and it sucks. It usually leaves her wondering if she did anything wrong or if she’s an interesting person to talk to.”
Immanuel Kant convincingly argued that “…all and only persons (i.e., rational autonomous agents) and the moral law they autonomously legislate are appropriate objects of the morally most significant attitude of respect. Although honor, esteem, and prudential regard played important roles in moral and political theories before him, Kant … put respect for persons, including oneself as a person, at the very center of moral theory, and his insistence that persons are ends in themselves with an absolute dignity who must always be respected has become a core ideal of [modern morality].” (“Respect” @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
If the technology of dating apps makes it convenient for us to get into the habit of ghosting other people whenever the whim strikes us, then what kind of people are we likely to become? What kind of dating culture is likely to evolve where this becomes the norm? Maybe Imani in the passage quoted above is hinting not just at respect and dignity due to other persons but also a kind of self-respect, since whether or not she ghosts the men she might be interested in implies that getting into the habit of doing so reflects on her self image. Perhaps, she thinks, “I don’t want to be the kind of person who dismisses people this way” or “Will I respect myself if I’m habitually leaving prospective dates in the dark about my intentions, even if it’s convenient in the moment?”
Context, of course, matters a lot here. For Imani, while some online chat on the dating app has involved men who are “…demeaning or make inappropriate jokes, [and] some send unsolicited explicit pictures, [while] some just talk about themselves and don’t think to ask her any questions; …on the other hand, there’s three people she can think of who seemed really kind and thoughtful, and she can see herself interested in people like them in the future.” If these latter people—who likely will have feelings of rejection or uncertainty similar to Imani’s—are ghosted by her just like the men who behave rudely or selfishly, then in effect it’s her need for convenience that reduces all of the prospective dates to candidates for ghosting (as Jake suggests). Why should the convenient means (the technology) justify these harmful ends (a dismissal of basic respect and dignity due to the real person on the receiving end)?
Perhaps you might think that, for practical reasons, the sheer scale of options available to users of a dating app doesn’t realistically allow for one to engage with others as we would face-to-face. That’s the benefit of the app’s architecture, no? It’s like a digital version of a speed dating session with built-in match-making filtering, without the hassles of face-to-face pleasantries; and it facilitates remote communication without having to struggle through the energy-draining, risky exchanges that a face-to-face breakup would entail. These features enhance our autonomy and make it more likely that users’ preferences are matched and met (thereby making loneliness less likely and potential happiness in relationships more possible).
…But is that really what happens? This might not be the first (or last) technology whose initial promises for increased well-being turn out to be hollow in many cases. Perhaps dating apps, because of the way their architecture is designed, in the long run actually promote selfishness and/or rude treatment of others (much like the anonymity of other online platforms ends up making trollish behavior more common). If the moral value of autonomy is to rank highly in our moral deliberations, the quality of self-governance involved should matter, not just the assertion of one’s entitlement to it. If we govern ourselves poorly, selfishly, without regard for the dignity or respect of others, then our self-governance won’t matter much to others. This means that respect for the autonomy of others (and ourselves) depends on a mutually-reinforcing network of persons continuing to treat each other with dignity and respect. If any technology platform erodes our ability to offer this to each other, then shouldn’t we turn a skeptical eye to the harmful norms propagated by that platform? (Put simply, if dating apps make it easy to ghost other people, then it’s likely that users of those apps will make ghosting a habit—which, ironically, will make dating harder for everyone.)
What do you think? Are there other values (or virtues) relevant to this case, besides autonomy, respect and dignity? Are there principles like the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) that ought to govern our dating interactions, even online? Naming these relevant moral values or principles—especially if they’re in conflict or tension—will help your team correctly identify what is the moral question of case #3, as well as to respond to questions about what the central (most important) moral dimension of the case is. Once you name them, cited by evidence from the case description, discuss which values or principles deserve priority in answering the case’s Discussion Questions.
Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study
- (Video) “PHILOSOPHY – The Good Life: Kant ” @ Wireless Philosophy. “In this Wireless Philosophy video, Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Immanuel Kant in the his moral, political, and religious writings. He explains why Kant believes that the highest good for a human being is the conjunction of happiness and complete virtue and how it is possible for an individual to attain these two things at the same time.” [5:53]
- (Article) “Why I ghosted my best friend | My behaviour haunts me to this day.” @ BBC 3. By Anonymous. 22 October 2018. EDITOR’S NOTE: While this article involves online ghosting of a friendship and not dating, the subjects involved experience related ethical complications as with case #3 (e.g., the way technology mediates their exchanges, likely with a sense of alienating remoteness and the lack of emotional cues or accountability that would come through face-to-face interaction). The way that dating apps allow for an experience of convenient sorting and editing one’s communication with potential dates, as well as shields of anonymity and cultivated profiles, mirrors—in some respects at least—the manner in which friendships can be mediated in novel ways with online communication tools (in this case texting). It’s worth exploring how these technologies are conflicting with, perhaps even reshaping, our deep social instincts about emotional responsibility (and thereby our ethical codes) in intimate relationships. Is this author’s ghosting of her (former) friend comparable to Imani or Jake’s choices to ghost potential dates? If so, how are the situations similar? Which moral intuitions are at play in either context—online dating or online navigation of friendships?
- (Article) “I’m a serial ‘ghoster’ in dating — here’s why I do it. @ Business Insider. By James Lindsay, Jun 4, 2018. EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe I’m old fashioned, but this article offers a testimony about ghosting in online dating that I—personally—find problematic, yet the author does articulate how online dating can transform our sense of personal responsibility, normalizing (rationalizing?) ghosting behaviors that wouldn’t be acceptable in person. Sample: “Within the confines of a common social group, dating, no matter how casual, always required a certain decorum. If you didn’t want to keep seeing someone, you had to say so, because you were definitely going to see that person again. Online dating has no such confines.“
- (Article) “Dating dilemma: is ghosting ever okay” @ THIS | Deakin Univ. Dr Petra Brown, Teaching Scholar, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University. Retrieved 11/29/21.
- (Article) “The Ethics of ‘Ghosting’” @ Ethics Sage. By Dr. Steven Mintz, PhD, is a professor emeritus from Cal Poly State University in San Luis Obispo. 09/04/2018.
- (Article) “Pulling the sheet back on ‘ghosting’” @ ASU Now. “ASU Now consulted Maura Priest, an associate professor and bioethicist in the School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies and the author of the forthcoming book, The Ethics of Dating, to explain the how and the why of this phenomenon.” 09/20/2019.
- (Article) “In Defense of Ghosting” @ Medium. By Reese Weatherl, Dec 25, 2020.
- (Scholarly Article) “ Psychological Correlates of Ghosting and Breadcrumbing Experiences: A Preliminary Study among Adults” @ International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. By Navarro R, Larrañaga E, Yubero S, Víllora B… 2020; 17(3):1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031116.
Related Ethics Bowl Cases
2017-18 National HSE201B Case #16. Haunted by Tinder: “What values are at play when determining how we should interact with people we meet through online dating platforms? When, if ever, is ghosting someone on social media ever acceptable?””
2018-19 National HSEB Case #15. It’s Just a Preference: “Jason was recently encouraged by his friends to try online dating. After a few days of no hits, he finally matches with someone only for them to send a message saying, “Sorry, accidentally swiped right. Not into Asians”. While racial preferences seem to be common in online dating many claim that these trends in dating preferences are racist. Others argue that desire is deeply rooted and one shouldn’t feel obligated to go against it. To what extent are racial preferences in dating an individual character flaw? A broader social problem? Neither? Both?