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!
I recently finished The Ethics Bowl Waywhile camping and loved it. Every chapter is superb, but one that stood out is the closer by Utah State Assistant Professor of Philosophy and longtime Ethics Bowl supporter Rachel Robinson-Greene. I reached out, Rachel agreed to an email interview on a key point, and here it is!
Matt: Rachel, excellent closing chapter in The Ethics Bowl Way. I love how you share your experience flying to an Ethics Bowl after 9/11 and then discussing a case on racial profiling, and how you confessed to at one time conflating morality with legality. Even the best among us have made that mistake. But few of us have admitted it in print!
Rachel: Thank you! I was honored to be asked to contribute a chapter; the Ethics Bowl has been a huge part of my life for decades now and it was nice to take a broad view and reflect on my experiences. I hope that some of the skills that Ethics Bowl teaches are intellectual humility and a willingness to recognize that you might be wrong about something. I’ve been wrong about many things over the years, including many of the things I argued for as a student.
Matt: In the book you broach the importance of a team holding consistent views across a set of cases, something I may have considered in passing, but never paused to ponder. As you say in the book, “from a competitive standpoint, there is no reason why a team’s position on two different cases must be coherent.” A team can promote a stringent Utilitarian view in one round, then play exclusive Kantians the next. They can take a Libertarian approach during prelims, then invoke Marx himself in the semi-finals. In fact, a team could laud Virtue Ethics while presenting their argument as Team A, then attack Aristotle while providing commentary on Team B. There’s no explicit point incentive to behave differently, for “when judging is done right, each case exists in isolation.” However, can you talk a little about why coherence and consistency are important for ethically-minded folks generally, and also why it’s something Ethics Bowl teams might want to pursue, even if there’s no official requirement to do so?
Rachel: One of the challenges for teams when they construct positions is that members might have different perspectives from one another, and some might be more sympathetic to one ethical theory while another would prefer to argue from a different ethical perspective. So, one of the reasons that coherence is not expected from one case to the next is that different people might have taken the lead on different cases. That said, coherence is an important consideration when forming beliefs in general. A lack of coherence can flag the existence of other critical thinking errors. For instance, if one is willing to argue using one theory in one case, but unwilling to use it in another, similar case, that may be a sign that the conclusion is driving the argument rather than the other way around. That said, many people are moral pluralists and think that different moral theories are appropriate in different domains of life. It’s also important to recognize that coherence for its own sake is neutral, after all, a person can have a coherent set of world views that all turn out to be false. That said, a lack of coherence can draw our awareness to false or poorly formed premises in our arguments. When students participating in Ethics Bowls observe inconsistency, it’s worth reflecting on why it exists.
Matt: Ah, excellent explanations as to why inconsistency might sometimes be OK (because different team members with different moral views might have taken the lead on different cases), why consistency itself is ethically neutral (I can imagine Nazis who are consistent, if nothing else), and how a lack of consistency can indicate close-minded moral reasoning (as you put it, “a sign that the conclusion is driving the argument rather than the other way around”). Reflecting on this, I recall Rawls promoting the benefits of what he called “wide reflective equilibrium.” Narrow reflective equilibrium is achieved when our positions on a variety of issues are consistent not only with our considered convictions (moral intuitions that withstand scrutiny) but with one another, and when we can articulate a coherent defense of the full set, plausibly explaining how our view on environmental ethics meshes with our view on abortion, how our view on treatment of animals meshes with our views on immigration, and how all of these mesh with our intuitions. But as you pointed out, that doesn’t guarantee morally-laudable views – maybe Hitler was consistent. However, “wide” reflective equilibrium happens when we engage in conversation with others, share our reasoning with them, and work to develop a collectively held set of consistent and defendable views. It’s been a while since I’ve read Political Liberalism or Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. But I suspect the search for wide reflective equilibrium was motivated by Rawls’s belief that seeking consistency not only internally, but with humanity at large, was the best way to improve our views. Two heads are better than one, five (an Ethics Bowl team) better than two, thirteen (both teams plus the judges) better than five, and society at large earnestly and respectfully deliberating together (following the Ethics Bowl model) even better.
Rachel: I think that’s right. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think the Ethics Bowl is an excellent opportunity to practice arriving at reflective equilibrium both at an individual and at a group level. I also think we can arrive at a similar conclusion through many normative theoretical frameworks. I’m thinking in particular about John Stuart Mill’s arguments in On Liberty to the effect that we are all better off as a result of being exposed to a wide range of perspectives. This is fundamental to the mission of the Ethics Bowl at the inter-team level; teams benefit from actively listening and carefully responding to the views of others. It is also true at an intra-team level at which we may recognize a need for something different in a new case argued by a different team member.”
Matt: Rachel, thanks so much for taking the time. I love the book overall, but yours was an especially enjoyable chapter. Anything else you’d like to add?
Rachel: Of course, this was fun. Thanks so much! I do have a book coming out in November, it’s called Edibility and In Vitro Meat: Ethical Considerations published by Lexington Books. It’s on a topic we’ve debated in the Ethics Bowl in the past—cell cultured meat. Anyone who enjoyed those discussions might enjoy the book as well!
Thank you, Rachel! Hoping this helps teams think more about how judgments on one case can inform and complement their views on other cases. And be sure to check out The Ethics Bow Way, as well as Edibility and In Vitro Meat, available for pre-order now, fully live Nov 30th. We’ll have to see what Rachel has to say about it, but lab-grown meat sounds like a wonderful win-win to me. Delicious nutrition without the cruelty of factory farming? Sign me up!
