I’ve been reading Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s classic, Peace of Mind,and came across a section on open-mindedness and moral confidence I thought would resonate with the Ethics Bowl community.
“Tolerance is not moral apathy or easy deviation from established principles. If we say apathetically, ‘One notion is a good as another,’ we are not being tolerant; we are merely being lazy… Dense, unenlightened people are notoriously confident that they have the monopoly on truth… But anyone with the faintest glimmerings of imagination knows that truth is broader than any individual conception of it… Renan’s remark that our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking should be sufficient warning against premature hardening of our intellectual arteries, or too stubborn insistence that we are infallibly and invariably right” (76).
Much of the world behaves otherwise, but cocksure arrogance vs. relativistic indifference is a false dilemma.
The mature approach, which takes time to develop, is instead one of principled humility – a desire to seek moral truth combined with a willingness to change our minds.
And that’s exactly the disposition that Ethics Bowl fosters.
Our friends at Ethics Olympiad recently shared footage from an International Intercollegiate round between the University of Chicago and Monash University.
Many readers will be familiar with the cases: “Billionaires in Space” and “A New Genesis.” But for folks in the States, the mythical drop bear is a koala variant said to silently prey on unsuspecting tourists, feasting on the flesh of any unaware enough to allow them to drop onto them from Australian treetops.
Kudos to judge Kelly Hamilton for the disarming ice-breaker, “If you could replace the leader of your country with an animal, what animal would you choose and why?” The Americans predictably chose the bald eagle. But the Aussies, in a slightly cheeky mood, went with the down under equivalent of the American snipe.
Anyway, that’s only the beginning. Coaches and teams would do well to fast-forward to their responses. Great job to Kelly and Michael Funke for helping the teams productively navigate the issues. And thanks to Matthew for making this available.
Congratulations to Australian National University in taking both the gold and bronze medals in the first international collegiate Ethics Bowl/Olympiad! I had the honor of volunteer judging the evening of the 18th (the morning of the 19th in Australia) and the competition was impressive on several levels, with ultra-prepared teams from the U.S. and Down Under, and a collegial, collaborative spirit running all the way from Ethics Olympiad Director Matthew Wills and Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Director John Garcia, through judges, coaches and teams.
According to organizer Matthew Wills, the winners were:
Gold – Australian National University Team 2
Silver – Tufts University
Bronze – Australian National University Team 1
Whitworth University was close behind in fourth, with honorable mentions awarded to Tufts University, University of Chicago and Monash University.
Kudos to Matthew and John for making this first collegiate-level international Bowl/Olympiad a reality, to the judges for volunteering their valuable time, and to the coaches and teams for spreading the goodwill of our unique approach to difficult moral and political issues across oceans and around the world. It’s needed in every country, and through partnerships like these the ethically-minded can combine forces, mutually empowering and elevating discourse one conversation at a time.
Here’s an in-depth article from EthicsBowl.org regular Michael Andersen, an Ethics Bowl coach and Philosophy Club adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics. “Linking Ethics Bowl Cases to Philosophy Club Topics” [PDF copy below] will provide you some ways to extend your school’s positive energy and enthusiasm beyond the Ethics Bowl season.
I consider Michael THE authority on this sort of thing, and I’m thrilled that he’d take the time to produce this especially detailed guide for his fellow coaches, and offer it exclusively here at EthicsBowl.org. In fact, I think we’ll host it permanently on the Resources page…
Look forward to more from Michael here on the blog. He may or may not be joining as an official co-editor!
2023 MHSEB Participants Striking their Best Philosopher Poses
Our friends in Ann Arbor report another successful Michigan High School Ethics Bowl. That makes 10 in a row! The only event cool enough to open with a 12-school trolley conga (no rail workers were injured), here are highlights from longtime organizer Jeanine DeLay.
“Our winner of The Hemlock Cup and Michigan regional champion was a first timer – The P-Zombies from Ann Arbor Skyline HS. And the runner-up and Keeper of Philosophy Flame prize also a first timer – Saline HS. The Best Team name prize for ‘Ethically Kantscious’ was submitted by Ann Arbor Huron HS. And The Best Team song prize for ‘I Won’t Back Down’ by Tom Petty was submitted by Beaverton High School’s ‘Dazed and Confucius’ team.”
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. No HSEB out-styles the Michiganders!
Jeanine and team are curious about other bowls’ traditions and colloquial brands of fun. If you’re up for sharing, shoot me an email or simply post a comment. And super EthicsBowl.org congrats to A2Ethics and Ann Arbor Skyline!
According to a recent press release, leaders in the US and Australia have agreed to hold the very first International Collegiate Ethics Bowl (aka Tertiary Ethics Olympiad) this coming April!
“In October 2022, ten university teams participated in the first-ever Tertiary Ethics Olympiad. Teams from universities in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, ACT and Western Australia participated in these heats. And in the end, teams from ANU and Monash University were awarded medals. This event is based on the popular Inter-Collegiate Ethics Bowl held annually in the US for nearly three decades. Given the long history of running these events in the US and the recent history of running Ethics Olympiads in Australasia, it made sense for the first International Tertiary Ethics Olympiad to happen on Wednesday, 19th April. Four top teams from Australasia will face the top US teams from the recent Intercollegiate US Ethics Bowl.”
To clarify, while it’ll be held the morning of Wednesday, April 19th down under, it’ll still be the evening of Tuesday, April 18th in the U.S. However, not too late – 6 til 10:30 Eastern, 3 to 7:30 Pacific. Awesome that a mutually amenable schedule was set.
Thanks to the folks on all sides for making this happen, chiefly Matthew Wills and John Garcia. Someone needed to do it. No one was. Way to be the change rather than merely talking or dreaming about it. Cheers!
Ethics Bowl Creator Bob Ladenson with another legend, Max Minshull – the only high schooler to organize a HSEB while still a student.
Ethics Bowl creator Bob Ladenson recently published an article in The Philosopher’s Magazine outlining benefits of and lessons from Ethics Bowl.
Benefits include “experiential education for open-mindedness” which participants gain by thinking through difficult, controversial, and as Bob puts it, often “highly viewpoint dependent” cases.
Another is “deliberative thoughtfulness” attained via “serious effort to understand [others’] views from the inside – to comprehend the key concerns motivating the viewpoint, and, at least to some extent, appreciating the force of those concerns.” Bob considers this ability to understand and empathize with those who disagree with us central to a stable, respectful democracy, and I agree.
The article also includes tips on how to offer stellar case commentary, even when your team agrees with the other’s conclusions, as well as a cool sample case on whether and how medical professionals should treat prisoners subjected to waterboarding and other “advanced interrogation techniques.”
If you’ve not had the pleasure of chatting with Bob or reading his work, the article is an easy, quick way to appreciate Ethics Bowl from the original founder’s perspective. Check it out here – and thanks to the Phil Mag editors for spreading the good word!
NHSEB Case 1 invites teams to think about the moral implications of creating sentient artificial life, and proposes a standard of cautious protectionism. It’s a cool topic on its own, but I’m noticing unexpected parallels with early human life that could inform an interesting all-things-considered view or inspire a nice judges’ Q&A question. And with NHSEBAcademy hosting a discussion with one of the case’s quoted philosophers this Thursday (click here to chat with Dr. Sebo live), now’s a great time to think harder about this case.
When A.I. neural networks will be sufficiently sophisticated to generate conscious awareness is unknown. We have enough trouble explaining normal consciousness. What would constitute clear evidence for artificial sentience is even more contested. It’s also unclear whether consciousness is a phenomenon replicable apart from organic material. Just as a genuine fire cannot be replicated in a computer simulation (no matter how fancy the algorithm, 1s and 0s modeling fire do not constitute actual fire), maybe consciousness operates similarly, forever precluding non-organic minds.
However, since we have a prima facie obligation to consider the interests of any entity capable of suffering, perhaps we should assume certain advanced A.I. is sentient to avoid facilitating great pain. Or so the NHSEB Case Committee suggests. They quote philosopher Jeff Sebo as arguing that “turning an A.I. off [and beforehand causing it to dread its death] can be wrong even if the risk of the A.I. being sentient is low… we should extend moral consideration to A.I.s not when A.I.s are definitely sentient or even probably sentient, but rather when they have a non-negligible chance of being sentient, given the evidence.” The writers go on to infer that the implicit moral principle “is that creating something with the capacity for sentience would also mean we created something that deserves moral consideration.” This seems noncontroversial enough. If there’s credible risk that Action A may harm a being capable of sentience, that’s at the very least reason to reconsider Action A.
Philosopher John McClellan once informally argued for similar caution on a completely different topic. Imagine that you’re hunting deer and hear a rustling sound in a bush. It might be a deer, but it might also be another hunter. Since killing a person would be a great moral wrong, we should of course await visual confirmation that it’s a deer before shooting. Well, McClellan argued that if we agree it would be immoral to shoot into a bush when there’s a reasonable risk that doing so might kill a person, we should apply similar logic to the status of Unborn Developing Humans when thinking about the morality of abortion. While some argue that UDHs are morally insignificant, others argue they possess great moral worth for a variety of reasons such as their unique capacity to develop into a full person and their possession of several features of personhood later in pregnancy, including conscious awareness. McClellan argued that so long as such reasons (or others) are sufficient to generate a non-negligible risk that UDHs are morally significant, abortion is extremely morally risky and thus only justifiable, if ever, in the most extreme circumstances (e.g., when the mother’s life is in danger).
How should Sebo’s standard that something with “the capacity for sentience… deserves moral consideration” apply to McClellan’s standard that when there’s a risk that we may destroy something with high moral value, we should err on the side of caution? How should our judgments about the treatment of potentially sentient A.I. inform and mesh with our judgments about the treatment of Unborn Developing Humans – entities that definitely possess the capacity for eventual sentience, and in the later stages of gestation, already are sentient? For one, maybe logical consistency demands that if we argue in favor of caution when it comes to possibly sentient A.I., we should adopt similar caution when dealing with Unborn Developing Humans.
Agree? Sense relevant differences that would justify treating one with more respect than the other? Either way, considering this angle should enrich a team’s overall understanding, and could also serve as a fantastic judge’s question. And if you think the case is cool and would like to discuss it with Dr. Sebo himself, be sure to take advantage of the town hall event happening this Thursday, December 15th at 7 EST. Attendance is free, but pre-registration is required. Click here for more info.
Regular EthicsBowl.org contributor Michael Andersen prepared the below Philosophy Club agenda / mini-curriculum for his Ethics Bowl team and generously agreed to share it with our readers. If you know a coach, please share! This is sure to elevate the thinking of any team that takes the time to explore the hyperlinked videos, articles and other resources. And this is definitely a case we want the Ethics Bowl community considering. Enjoy, and thanks as always, Michael!
As promised, the NHSEBAcademy Studio recently began offering Zoom-based supplementary coaching. Beyond the Staffed Scrimmages, teams also have the option to book a Case Brainstorm session, Presentation Consultation or Practice Q&A.
That this is free and available to any team — public or private, seasoned or rookie, near or far — is marvelous. Coaching on the public speaking aspects will help so many inexperienced and shy participants. And I think the Case Brainstorms will be especially helpful. So often we get caught up in the competitive aspects. A chance to simply share ideas and explore lines of reasoning may be the best way to promote the true spirit of Ethics Bowl yet.
Special thanks to the Parr Center and Team NHSEB for making this superb resource available. Click here to check it out, and please help spread the word!
