Article example – analysis of “zingers” from a presidential primary debate.
I recently met author and educational consultant Jonathan Haber at the American Philosophical Association’s annual Eastern Division meeting. Having just presented on how ethics bowl enthusiasts have leveraged the web (team collaboration, volunteer registration, awesome blogs), Haber asked me and the other panelists about ways to encourage journalists to improve the quality of their inferences.
As he explained, media-types are used to fact checking. But many feel unqualified, and possibly a little defensive, about logic checking. This is why he set up LogicCheck.net, a website devoted to helping journalists improve the quality of their reasoning. The tagline: Check the Facts. Understand the Argument. Know the Truth.
I suggested highlighting examples of well-reasoned journalism and possibly adding a gentle rating system. The examples could serve as models. And the ratings could encourage journalists to review their inferences before clicking “publish.”
Well, I was pleased to receive a message from Haber this week that he had featured a well-argued editorial by Houston Chronicle staff and awarded it “five dumbbells” as an especially strong argument.
Titled, “Purge of Trump, Parler Show Big Tech Firms Have Too Much Power,” the Chronicle’s argument is indeed evenhanded and reasonable. As Haber points out, the authors don’t marginalize the legitimate values in tension: freedom of expression vs. safety, stability and truth. Their proposed solution (putting more responsibility on platforms, authors and communities to self-monitor, with some light government oversight) follows well enough rom the premises. And it’s both measured and respectfully offered.
Written in the mature, civil style of philosophers at their best, it’s indeed a fine example of a quality argument. Kudos to the Houston Chronicle for their responsible journalism, and kudos to Haber and LogicCheck.net for featuring it. Check out the article and analysis for yourself here.
While you’re there, peruse the site, see what you might learn under Argumentation, More -> Fallacies or Logic-Checker.
Now, who’s the former ethics bowler writing for the Chronicle?
In response to COVID-related bowl cancellations, two ambitious students in New York recently launched the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals. Press release below – kudos to Isabelle and Holly for taking the initiative! Check it out yourself at eethicsbowl.com.
We formed NEEBI, the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals, to create a national student-led club where any student in the country can participate in our essay contests, or attend our zoom events to talk about ethics issues, or even do some informal ethics debating. We were very motivated to make friends throughout the country who, like us, love ethics.
There are so many divisions in our country, and it was our hope that a national student ethics club would be a great way to create student unity, and get students talking to each other about important issues in a fun way, and enjoying each other’s company.
In addition to our essay contests and zoom meetings, we plan to start a “Bulletin Board” page listing different ethics events coming up during the year in different schools, organizations and universities so that there is one “go-to” place for high school students looking for ethics-activities, especially summer experiences and courses. We are also considering a “Congratulations” page to celebrate winners in the Ethics community of different events if students wish to send in their accomplishments. Finally, we would love for other students to form chapters of NEEBI in their geographic regions, and we can recognize those Chapter Leaders on our website with their names and bios and advertise their separate meeting dates.
We feel that philosophy is a great unifier, leads to critical thinking, and should be invested in at high schools. It is our greatest hope to reach students who do not have Ethics Clubs in their own schools to give them more opportunities to meet and to debate ethical issues informally and with new friends everywhere. – Isabelle Friedberg and Holly Hanlon
My friend Jamey spent a total of 6 years in prison. Today he’s free and thriving. And just a few months ago, he got married. I asked him to review NHSEB case 10, Dating After Prison. What were his thoughts?
Boxing teammate and friend Jamey with wife Peyton
A natural athlete, Jamey had been a star running back in elementary school. He was fast. Scary fast. “Who’s that little white blur?” fast.
Then in the 7th grade he developed chronic knee pain. No longer the fastest, his popularity and self-esteem took a hit, and he turned to substance abuse.
A couple of years into high school his knees were better, but the bad habits remained. He switched to a vocational track to graduate, and played well enough to earn a football scholarship. It was in college that Jamey got his first opportunity to sell drugs. He found that he was naturally good at that, too.
A drug dealer’s life doesn’t mesh well with the demands of higher education. And when the college experiment failed, the downward spiral accelerated. Jail time became prison time, and winning $50k from a scratch-off lottery ticket just made things worse.
Jamey was a teammate, mentor and coach at my boxing gym, Monroe County Boxing Club. He taught me how to not to not be “a moving punching bag,” how to use my endurance as a weapon, and how to push my body into beastmode and beyond.
When we met, he’d already done significant time behind bars. And while boxing kept him straight for a while, he relapsed and found himself in trouble with the law once again. The judge gave him the option to either go back to prison or to Miracle Lake, a rustic Christin rehab facility near Etowah, Tennessee. Jamey took the chance, and the experience changed his life.
He’s been clean and straight ever since, and this summer my family attended a beautiful outdoor wedding where he wed his soulmate, Petyon. I remember when Jamey and Peyton first began dating, and I was there when he proposed during intermission at the annual Monroe County Boxing Club Rumble. So when I read case 10, he immediately came to mind.
He agreed to discuss it, and explained that when he graduated from Miracle Lake and thought about dating again, he wanted to be as transparent as possible about his past.
So he shared his background on his Facebook page, regularly posting about the dark places he’d been, and how much better life was on the other side. He would also share his testimony at church, which is where he and Peyton met. As Jamey put it, “I didn’t want anyone to feel deceived. I wanted to be accepted for who I was.”
However, while he wanted church friends and love interests to know as soon as possible, he didn’t think disclosing his prison time was as important for casual friendships (see ethics bowl case discussion question #3).
“About the friendship thing, that’s not as important to reveal right up front… You wouldn’t want her to find out and feel misled. But with dudes, it may not even come up for a long time. But Peyton, she knew everything. I feel that was important.”
In contrasting the gentlemen in the ethics bowl case (Antoine and Jack – see discussion question #2), Jamey thought they were clearly different. “There’s definitely a moral difference due to the type of crime and their time in prison. One was innocent, the other admitted it.”
Jamey argued that the differing amount of time served by Antoine and Jack – Antoine, 8 years, and Jack, 27– was especially relevant.
“The longer you’re in there, away from society, the more of a criminal mind you could have. Not everyone, but someone doing that much time is definitely going to be different. Their frame of mind – someone doing that much time – it becomes truly institutionalized.”
The implication seems to be that a person would have a stronger obligation to reveal their prison time sooner when a) they were guilty, b) their crime was violent and c) lengthy prison time had altered their character in negative ways. These are all things a potential life partner would want to know. And so Jamey argues they’re better to share immediately in the interests of building trust.
However, Sequoyah High School Ethics Bowl team member Juli Brackett argues sharing prison time could and should wait until the third date. Why date #3?
First dates are often shallow chit-chat. Second dates, when they happen, suggest agreement that there’s long-term potential. But by the third date, it’s clear both parties are open to a serious commitment. The emotional attachment approaches an unspoken but significant threshold. And that’s when someone who’s been to prison should disclose it, argues Juli.
Why not share it on or before date #1? Juli argues this could sabotage what could become a beautiful happily-ever-after. If everyone shared their darkest secrets up-front, no one would get married. Waiting puts both parties in a better position to put past mistakes into context.
The up-front approach worked for Jamey. But maybe he was especially charming. Or maybe the fact that he and Peyton met at church reassured her he was a changed man.
Whether Juli’s or Jamey’s approach is morally best is arguable. But three factors that seem unarguably relevant: 1) whether the person was guilty, 2) the nature of their crime, and 3) time served and its impact on their character.
If you’ve been meaning to submit a write-up for Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! but just haven’t gotten around to it, don’t miss your chance!
Pour a hot cup of Joe, put that pesky smartphone on airplane mode, and shoot me your thoughts on why ethics bowl rocks, your hopes (and fears) for its future, and anything you’re inclined to share.
Leave the fancy writing to me — literary perfection is neither required nor expected. I’ll simply be pulling key quotes and weaving them into the book’s narrative. So you don’t even have to worry about writing a coherent essay — just answer the prompt. Submissions welcome from organizers, coaches, judges, moderators, competitors and simply fans.
Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! Interview Questions – please submit to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by Oct 31 (shortly thereafter is also OK if you mail me Reese’s Cups):
1) Why were you initially attracted to ethics bowl and why do you continue to support it?
2) What do you see as ethics bowl’s primary benefits?
3) What’s your vision for ethics bowl’s future?
4) Anything extra you’d like to add?
5) What’s your role and how long have you been involved?
If you’re an organizer scrambling to pull together virtual bowl training materials, take a deep breath, strike your favorite yoga pose, and click here. Michigan HSEB organizer Jeanine DeLay and her team at A2Ethics offer a relaxing, reassuring judge training video sure to chillax volunteers and participants worldwide.
One of the things we love about A2Ethics – their style! Here’s Jeanine encouraging judge trainees to stand and stretch.
If you’re an organizer, Jeannine can empathize with the worries that keep you up at night, likening bowl coordination to “mosquito control at a nudist camp.” Luckily we learn from one another’s mistakes and build on one another’s successes. Past problems have inspired redundant point-tallying officials, recruiting, courting and training more volunteers than needed, and in Michigan this year implementation of a new alternate judging system.
While only three judges’ score sheets will be counted, four judges will log into Zoom to view and score each match. Why? If one of the official judges’ computers decides bowl time is the perfect time for a forced reboot, the alternate judge will be promoted, their scores included in the totals. Tada! Simple, seamless, effective.
One note: the scoring interface featured in the video is unique to the Michigan Bowl. I’ve tested it and it works great – suspect creator Wayne Eaker of Zengenuity, Inc would be willing to discuss how to do something similar at your bowl if interested. Thanks for your devotion and leadership, Jeanine and team! The best of luck with your upcoming V-Bowl.
That familiar match format, even if via an unfamiliar platform
Have your own virtual bowl disaster avoidance ideas? New virtual bowling materials others might benefit from? Share in a comment or shoot me an email and we’ll get the word out in an article – collaboration and cooperation are what ethics bowl is all about.
Case 1 this NHSEB season comes out pretty hard against factory farming. This is uncharacteristic of ethics bowl cases, which usually offer a decent balance of reasons for and against. The lopsided presentation may be appropriate due to just how difficult factory farming is to morally defend. However, one angle to consider is how beef production and consumption doesn’t seem quite as morally problematic as other forms of meat.
Napoleon reconsidering his career choice…
Industrial vs. Mom and Pop
First, it’s important to distinguish factory farming from family and hobby farming. Our romanticized image of agrarian animal husbandry still exists. I bottle fed calves as a teenager in the 90s. My wife’s family once raised a pig. Thousands of preparedness-minded suburbanites built luxury chicken coups at the outset of COVID. These examples aren’t what case 1 is targeting.
Factory farmed pigs are kept in industrial buildings on concrete floors, separated from their mother shortly after birth, and given little opportunity for interaction or mental stimulation. Despite what the entitled dogs in Babe may say, pigs are famously smart, as smart as or smarter than canines. Imagine thousands of bright Australian Shepherds, eager to herd and frolic and fetch, instead confined to concrete cells. Now imagine equally intelligent pigs in the same predicament, no warm mud to wallow in, no landscape to explore.
As Napoleon Dynamite discovered, factory farmed chickens are crammed into cages so small they can’t even spread their wings. Imagine having a powerful instinctual drive to do something as simple as flapping, yet being smothered between a wire cage that cuts into your feet and fellow prisoners pecking at your face. For your entire life. Whether bred for poultry or eggs, factory farmed chickens lead pretty miserable lives.
This just scratches the surface. If you’re up for the full gory truth, PETA and similar organizations routinely send spies undercover to record how factory farms are run. So do some research – ensure your position on factory farms is based on a fair and accurate assessment of actual, current conditions. But just as we shouldn’t accept the myth that all farms are happy farms, we shouldn’t conclude all meat sources are equally tortured.
Bacon vs. Beef
While some factory farmed animals have it really bad, it would be a sweeping generalization to conclude all meat sources are severely mistreated.
Beef cattle, for example, often live a decent life up until the point of slaughter. They’re usually free to roam and graze, breed and birth, and are left largely to behave as they might in the wild. This isn’t because beef farmers are necessarily concerned with cows’ happiness. Giving them room to roam is simply efficient and convenient. Cattle need grass (and hay during the winter), a water source (any pond or creek will do), and a good enough fence. Fenced fields are cheap. Pond water falls freely from the sky. So long as you don’t have too many cows per acre, or you rotate the herd at regular intervals, grass grows on its own. I know because I live in cattle country and thanks to kind neighbors enjoy ATV rides along and through cow pastures regularly (watch for those patties!). Beef cattle aren’t pampered. But their lives usually aren’t as bad as factory farmed pigs and chickens.
Of course, veal’s another story. Veal comes from calves who have weights tied around their necks to prevent them from moving. This ensures their meat is tender and white, which is what makes veal veal.
Cows are also sometimes artificially inseminated rather than naturally bred. Having a farmer impregnate you with a long straw feels invasive, cow or not. Young bulls often have their testicles removed via a thick rubber band that cuts off the blood supply and causes the scrotum to rot and fall off (this turns bulls into steers, preferred because steers are less aggressive and easier to handle). The de-horning process is painful and traumatic. Horns are either prevented from growing with an acidic cream, or cut off with shears (horns look cool, but being gored isn’t).
So it’s not all green grass and loafing. But hey, cattle are largely left alone, receive water, food and medical attention, I’m assuming even at the largest operations. Simply being able to roam outdoors is worth a great deal, and so beef cattle in particular would seem to have a less miserable life than non-free range poultry chickens and laying hens, as well as factory farmed pigs.
We should also note that dairy (milk-producing) cows have it worse off than beef cattle. I know because I’ve visited local dairies – watched a high school buddy dip a cow’s udders in an iodine solution before attaching the suction mechanism that drained its milk. One hardship is that dairy cows are kept perpetually pregnant – that’s why they’re able to continually produce milk. Male offspring aren’t especially useful on a dairy farm, and are sold to be raised for beef. That’s how I obtained my own calves as a kid, by buying 3-day-old Holsteins from a local dairy which I’d then raise to 6 months or so and sell to farmers at auction.
I concede this so you know the extent and limits of my experience with farm animals. Full factory farms I know only through YouTube. But medium-sized beef cattle and dairy farms and hobby egg operations, I’ve seen up close. I actually raised chickens as a kid – my favorite’s name was Cluck. My first calf’s name was Buttercup. If your only encounters with farm animals have been at the zoo, do some research so your view isn’t based on an overly rosy or an overly ugly myth. The truth is somewhere in between.
Size Matters
Ethicist and philosophy grad school buddy Joel MacClellan once made a convincing argument that it’s less morally problematic to eat meat from large as opposed to small animals. Why? One cow can supplement a small family’s diet for an entire year. However, one chicken won’t last a week. In fact, if KFC’s family-sized buckets are any indication, sometimes it takes more than one chicken to feed a single family a single meal.
Assuming cows’ and chicken’ ‘lives and suffering matter equally, if killing and eating one rather than the other would decrease suffering and death, all else equal, that’s the one people should eat. In fact, if whale meat were healthy and sustainable, according to this line of argument, we should all switch to whale. Or bear or hippopotamus or whatever.
MacClellan’s insistence that we eat meat in ways that minimizes overall pain and maximizes overall pleasure is consistent with the argument Australian philosopher Peter Singer offers in Animal Liberation. A Utilitarian, Singer contrasts the pleasure humans get from the taste of animal flesh with the great suffering animals must endure to provide it, concluding that our pleasure is far outweighed by their pain. His logic is hard to deny.
Given that factory farms are especially miserable, Singer’s argument is most powerful for animals stuck in them, living under the worst conditions. And combined with MacClellan’s argument, it would seem that eating smaller animals, which presumably endure greater suffering to produce similar nutrition and taste satisfaction, is more morally problematic than eating larger animals.
Thus, a reasonable person interested in developing a nuanced position on factory farming might conclude that it’s less wrong to eat non-veal beef as opposed to chicken, bacon and other meats. Why? Because non-veal beef cattle’s lives aren’t as terrible, and each can provide many times more satisfaction and nutrition to those who consume them.
Of course, an even more reasonable person might insist that carnivores eat wild deer or salmon, or synthetic meats grown in a lab (wait, wasn’t that an ethics bowl case from last season?). And an even more reasonable person might insist we satisfy our taste buds with yummy fruits and vegetables, and get our nutrition from pain-free plant-based proteins. But if your team isn’t ready for all that, try pitching this approach. And whatever the case, base your views on a realistic assessment of what factory farming is all about.
P.S. Australian Ethics Olympiad coach Andre Costantino wrote this excellent post on the ethics of meat consumption only two months ago. It’s on a different ethics bowl case, and not specific to factory farming. But it does address common misconceptions and bad rationalizations likely to come up during prep and/or competition.
P.P.S. Notice how the analysis above steers the conversation away from traditional factory farming, and also how it doesn’t directly address the enumerated list of harms found in the case’s final paragraph. To thoroughly prepare your team, be sure they’re ready to answer the question asked (oh man, practice question 3 with this one is tough!) , and also have some thoughts on the issues raised in the case which include environmental harms, labor-related issues, the fact that meat-eating is often unhealthy, and how large factory farms run smaller operations out of business.
Our friends at the Parr Center have been busy, recently launching the brand new all-online NHSEBAcademy. The best part? Live, Zoom-based bowling clinics. The first two are scheduled for later this week (register here). Depending on how interactive they are, this could be a game-changer. But wait, there’s more!
I believe that’s our friend Kyle Robertson at UC Santa Cruz featured on the organizer kit image. Looking good, Kyle!
The Library contains zip files packed with material tailored for teams, coaches, judges and organizers. You can download the current NHSEB rules and guidelines, case pool, score sheet and rubric (coaches and teams – don’t overlook those scoring criteria!), and even moderator scripts. Resources planned for future release include a guide to coaching a bowl during COVID (tip: buy a webcam), a manual for organizers interested in growing their bowl (I have an older version from my time as the original NHSEB Director of Outreach – email if you can’t wait for the new one), and “Ethics Bowl in Class: Resources for the Classroom and Beyond.”
The Theater includes an “Ethical Reasoning Toolkit” playlist beginning with a vid by Yale’s Kelley Schiffman. Prof Schiffman deftly distinguishes between descriptive and normative claims, and is followed by an exploration of the nature and moral implications of consent. While the consent vid uses the language of rights far too much (rights claims are too clunky for quality ethics bowl work), it’s redeemed by a cookie-eating illustration. Cookies cure all, and since we’re bashing rights claims, I hereby proclaim a universal human right to Toll House chocolate chip lovers cookies.
The second playlist, “Arguing About Morality,” begins with a vid similar to the descriptive vs. normative distinction from the first list, only this time delivered by John Corvino and focusing on facts vs. opinions. Corvino next overviews how arguments by analogy work, and how to analyze them. Arguments by analogy are common and persuasive – a team’s entire bowling strategy could be built on them (a possible strategy for my own team…).
The library and theater are certain to benefit teams, coaches, judges and volunteers. But the most welcome, innovative and value-adding feature is NHSEBAcademy Live.
NHSEBAcademy Live is a new series of specially-designed online events for NHSEB students, coaches, organizers, and volunteers. These programs will provide new ways to engage with Ethics Bowl content, mechanics, and skills. Our full schedule of events is below, and more will be added throughout the Fall and Winter in the lead up to NHSEB Regional Season.
NHSEBAcademy.org/live
First up is a new ethics bowl clinic scheduled for Thursday, Oct 22nd from 3-4:30 EST and Saturday, Oct 24th from 4:30-6 EST (the second will be a repeat of the first). The workshops promise to cover “presentation techniques, responsive commentaries, practice Q+A sessions, and more.” Registration is required and will enable access to the Zoom link. If you check it out, let us know how it went. We may digitally bump into one another at the Saturday session.
Thanks, UNC, for this innovation. Looking forward to all the Academy has to offer. Readers can check it out via the menu at NHSEB.unc.edu or by clicking here.
A brand new NHSEB case pool was released today, and the topics are promising. There are cases on mask wearing, police de-funding, TikTok, and my favorite — Tiger King!
We’ll begin sharing initial analyses soon. But guest posts are often the best posts, so if you or your team would like to claim one of the cases (not Tiger King – I got dibs), shoot me an email (matt (at) mattdeaton.com) and we’ll get your thoughts posted soon.
Check out the cases via nhseb.unc.edu -> Cases or directly here. And happy analyzing, you cool cats and kittens!
Huge thanks to the organizers, judges, coaches and competitors who’ve already agreed to submit or who’ve submitted write-ups for Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! From founders Bob and Joanne in California, to organizers Richard and Rachel in Utah, Fred in Baltimore, Leo in Shanghai, Jeanine in Michigan, Matthew in Perth, Greg in Texas, Matt in Ohio, Alex in Oregon, Roberta in New York, Alex in North Carolina and George in Florida, to judges Tim, Andrew and Dirk in Australia, as well as Ted, Rob and Claire in Portland, to coaches Michael in Washington and Lance in Tennessee, it’s great to have so much support this early. Thanks to all!
I’ve attempted to invite all National High School and Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl organizers (well, almost all — still a couple of names left on this very long list), so if you haven’t received an email, please check your spam folder and/or please contact me directly.
I’m asking organizers to nominate judges, coaches, moderators, participants and others they think might be able to contribute. However, ethics bowl organizers are notoriously busy people, especially with this COVID-corrupted semester underway, and most are understandably preoccupied with trying to figure out how to best host their bowl via Zoom. (I understand bowl leadership is ahead of the game on this, which is very good news – maybe everyone can relax?) So I hereby personally invite anyone sharing a love for ethics bowl, including you, to answer the following:
1) Why were you initially attracted to ethics bowl and why do you continue to support it?
2) What do you see as ethics bowl’s primary benefits?
3) What’s your vision for ethics bowl’s future?
4) Anything extra you’d like to add?
Nothing fancy or complete required. I’ll simply be pulling key quotes from submissions as I write the book. Please send your responses and any questions to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by October 31st.
Thanks in advance. The world needs to know why ethics bowl is such an impactful and awesome event perhaps now more than ever. It’s Ethics Bowl to the Rescue!, and there’s no reason we should keep that good news to ourselves. Cheers, Matt
Santa Sabina College Philosophy and Religious Education Teacher Andrew Costantino recently delivered an excellent Ethics Olympiad (Australia’s Ethics Bowl) case analysis presentation. The primary case: Is It OK to Punch a Nazi? The primary metaphor: baking and eating cookies!
cookie ingredients (chocolate chips, an egg, brown sugar, etc.) = case presumptions and facts
the recipe (mix, bake at 350 degrees for 12 mins) = construction of the argument
the eating experience (bland, burnt or perfecto) = the argument’s consequences and implications
Could there be a more delicious way to explain argument construction and analysis? Brilliant!
Costantino also considers and explains subject-centered approaches to ethics, providing substantial analysis from the perspective of Virtue Ethics, action-centered approaches, including Deontological Ethics such as Kantianism, and consequence-based theories, including Utilitarianism.
He does a nice job dividing Kant’s Categorical Imperative into the Humanity Principle and Universality Principle – much better labels than The First and Second Formulations (which I’m guilty of using). And is careful to explain how Utilitarianism should take into account long-term consequences (as suggested by Rule Utilitarianism), and can morph into preference-satisfaction Utilitarianism, as promoted by world-famous Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer.
Whether you’re a coach, competitor, judge or fan, the vid’s almost certainly worth your time. Thanks to Andrew for putting it together, and thanks to Matthew Wills with Ethics Olympiad for recording and sharing it with the EthicsBowl.org community.
