Author: Matt Deaton

Posted on

Expanded Case Analysis Example: K-Pop

EthicsBowl.org contributor, ethics bowl coach and judge, Michael Andersen, recently shared several examples of expanded case analysis worksheets he creates for his team (a lucky team indeed!). The format: generate interest with engaging media, share the case as originally presented, consider tweaked discussion questions, offer bonus research resources, and close out by connecting the current case to related cases. I think it’s a marvelous approach, and thank Michael for his permission to share an example with our readers. If you have your own coaching tips or resource samples to share with the community, we’d be happy to feature them. Just reach out to matt (at) mattdeaton.com, or use the contact form at MattDeaton.com. Thanks as always, Michael!

Ethics Club 11/5/20 EB Case #7. The Korean Pop Industrial Complex

Today’s Discussion Topic: ​Do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated? Is the entertainment industry inherently exploitative?

Pre-Discussion Resources:

2020-21 Regional Ethics Bowl Case #7. The Korean Pop Industrial Complex

Within the past decade, Korean Pop, more commonly known as K-Pop, has rapidly become a global sensation. South Korean artists have hit the Billboard Hot 100 chart at least eight times. In 2019, BTS became the first K-Pop group to be nominated for a Grammy. Adored due to its distinctive blend of catchy tunes, clean choreography, and glamorous idols, the K-Pop industry has grown along with the rise of Hallyu, a Chinese term which describes the popularity of South Korean culture internationally.1 Via Korean pop, drama, skincare regimens, and more, South Korea has become a fixture in popular culture worldwide.2

In an increasingly globalized society, many think that the rise of K-Pop is a force of moral good. Cultural globalization allows people from all parts of the world to understand one another and appreciate different ideas, meanings, and values. In turn, this enables the ability to empathize and relate to others, no matter where they are from. K-Pop is also a way for South Korea to develop its “soft power”, which describes the “intangible power a country wields through its image, rather than through hard force,” such as military or economic power.3

However, for K-Pop performers, the journey to fame is a grueling one. Stories of tired performers putting up a happy front to excitedly greet fans is not uncommon in an industry where exploitative contracts, demanding beauty ideals, and even human rights violations are mainstay. K-Pop performers work long hours which go largely undercompensated, as the money their content earns is often funneled back into corporate hands or toward chipping away at looming debt.4 Plastic surgery, too, is an open secret in the industry.5 Many trainees are expected to go under the knife, with the most common procedures designed to achieve highly-coveted features like double eyelids or a straighter nose. Of additional concern, sexual exploitation is a quiet phenomenon and a common truth for women in Korean entertainment. Young performers are often taken advantage of by power brokers behind closed doors. In a culture which often stigmatizes sexuality, these scandals are obscured from public view.6 Moreover, the K-Pop industry exists to meet and cater to the demands of a hungry fanbase, who are consistently starved for new content. Fans are often criticized for propagating a system which treats its artists poorly.

Still, many assert that K-Pop is a net good. Although the exploitative habits of the industry are suspect, performers voluntarily enter their contracts. Additionally, Korean culture emphasizes work ethic. According to the OECD, “South Koreans work more hours per week on average than all but one other country, and almost 50% more than famously industrious Germany.”7 To criticize the K-Pop industry based on the dedication of performers, some argue, would be inconsiderate of differing cultural values..

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: ​(Slightly modified and extended from ​original Qs​)​:

  1. Do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated?
  2. a) If people voluntarily enter contracts, does it matter that the terms of the contract are exploitative or otherwise unethical? b) How can we distinguish between coercion and voluntary agreement?
  3. a) Is the entertainment industry inherently exploitative? b) How should we decide if working conditions should be properly described as “exploitative” and therefore morally impermissible?

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study:

  1. (Video) “​The Late Capitalism of K-Pop​” @ Jonas Čeika – CCK Philosophy.​[17:33] While I was not able to find any biographical details of this video essayist with an admittedly leftist bent, his analysis of the K-Pop industrial complex in Korea presents some helpful historical and philosophical context. In this notes for the video, he cites his sources as well as corrections to the script since the publication of the video in 2017–a signifier of some intellectual credibility, at least.
  2. (Video) “​Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?​” @ Libertarianism.org. [6:07] ​For a contrary view to the video above (although not focused on the K-Pop context), U. San Diego Philosophy Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains why capitalism actually tends to protect workers’ interests. “The idea that capitalism exploits workers stems from Karl Marx’s work in the late 1800s. Although the definition of “exploitation” has changed since then, many still believe capitalist systems take advantage of vulnerable workers. …Zwolinski contends that even if it were exploitative, increasing political regulation and control would actually make the problem worse. Increases in government make citizens more vulnerable to the state.”
  3. (Article) “​Exploitation | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​” ​“​To exploit someone is​to take unfair advantage of them. It is to use another person’s vulnerability for one’s own benefit. Of course, benefiting from another’s vulnerability is not always morally wrong—we do not condemn a chess player for exploiting a weakness in his opponent’s defense, for instance. But some forms of advantage-taking do seem to be clearly wrong, and it is this normative sense of exploitation that is of primary interest to moral and political philosophers….”
  4. (Video) “​What is Consent?: Consent #1 – Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY​” ​[6:50] What is consent? In this Wireless Philosophy video, Prof. Tom Dougherty (University of Cambridge) considers the nature of consent and its relationship to morality, rights, and harm.
  5. (Video) “​Consent and Rights: Consent #2 – Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY​” ​[7:53] In this Wireless Philosophy video, Prof. Tom Dougherty (University of Cambridge) continues his exploration of the nature of consent and its relationship to morality, rights, and harm.
  6. (Article) “​Exploding the myths behind K-pop | Bright and irresistible, K-pop provides the beat to South Korea’s youth culture. But behind the perfect smiles and dance routines are tales of sexism and abuse​.” By Crystal Tai, The Guardian​, Sun 29 Mar 2020.
  7. (Article) “​A**holes, job dependency, and intimacy: 3 reasons it’s hard to end harassment in Hollywood | The way the film and TV industries are structured makes them a breeding ground for abuse​.” By Emily VanDerWerff, ​Vox​, Nov 17, 2017.
  8. (Article) “​Sexual Abuse in the Entertainment Industry.​” @ NWG Network, Oct 23, 2017.

Related Ethics Bowl Cases:

  1. (Related Ethics Bowl Case) ​2014-15 National EB Case #2: Ethical Consumerism​“Maria wonders whether it is morally acceptable to buy cheap products manufactured by people working for low wages in bad conditions. Are we morally obligated to ensure that none of our actions indirectly harm others?”
  2. (Related Ethics Bowl Case) ​2015-16 National Case #2: Prison Work​​“Many states make use of work prisons where prisoners “volunteer” to work and then receive a wage. Does this constitute exploitation of prisoners or is it necessary to reduce the high cost of the criminal justice system and help prisoners gain work skills? Is it ethical for a private company to pay workers in prison less than workers outside prison? Is it ethical for private companies to earn a profit from prison labor?”
  3. (Related Ethics Bowl Case) ​2014-2015 National Case #6. NFL Fandom​​“Is being a fan of the NFL football morally defensible? Critics state the NFL treats players as faceless commodities, and football is a potentially dangerous and degrading activity. Supporters stress the importance of players’ consent.”
Posted on

Possibly The First Ever Ethics Bowl Rap

a sampling of the Michigan HSEB spirit

Imagine a Zoom room filled with bobbing heads, shaking shoulders and “roof raising” hands.

Imagine “DJ DeLay” hyping the crowd, passing the mic from ethics bowl coaches to judges to team captains and back.

Imagine fresh 80s tunes pumpin’ in the background.

And imagine U-M Philosophy Outreach Coordinator Adam Anderson Waggoner stealing the show with a custom Michigan High School Ethics Bowl kickoff rap.

Hey Jeanine, Hey Jeanine, U of M Philosophy loves the ethics bowl scene! It gives us inspiration for our academic dreams.

The questions, the insights, analysis of cases – your work is the reason for the smiles on our faces.

Everyone is showing that the ethics keeps them flowing. No matter where you go, you know we will keep it goin’.

And I want to thank all the dedicated coaches, for all your hours spent, and for all your new approaches. The way you make a difference is amazing – please know this.

So now I’ll pass the mic right back to Jeanine, so we can hear some words from these excellent teams.

What an awesome way to begin a weekend of ethics bowling! As DJ DeLay put it, an event “dedicated to everyone around the world working for health and education, dignity and justice… and philosophy for all.”

All I have to say is…. Aint no party like a Michigan HSEB party cause a Michigan HSEB party don’t stop! Keep doin’ yo think, A2Ethics and DJ DeLay 😉

Posted on

NHSEBOne Regionals Debrief

Virtual bowling was definitely different. On the plus side, we didn’t have to get up as early, got home sooner, and could dress casually from the waist down. On the downside, technology! Awesome when it works. Maddening when it doesn’t.

zoom image

However, we persevered. Despite bandwidth issues, system crashes, barking dogs and FedEx deliveries, rounds proceeded per usual. Tough issues were thoughtfully discussed. Minds were expanded. Civility was modeled. And ultimately, regional champions were crowned.

Was the NHSEBOne format perfect? No. But having used it to both judge (Texas and New York / New Jersey HSEBs) and coach (Tennessee HSEB) over past week, it was pretty darn good. The only constructive suggestion I can think of – add phone numbers to the Zoom rooms so participants can call in when all else fails. Because sometimes, all else fails.

Overall, I liked it, as well as the similar Zoom-based platform used by the Michigan HSEB. So much so that regardless of whether and when Covid subsides, I encourage regional bowl organizers to retain the opportunity for judges, teams and even moderators to participate remotely. There’s no way I would have flown to Long Island or Tyler (Texas) or Ann Arbor to judge those events. Yet it was awesome to connect with ethically-minded leaders in those communities. We all know there are thoughtful folks out there somewhere considering the same issues, thinking through the same discussion questions, enjoying the same “anti-debate” format. But prior to the pandemic, apart from the regional champs at UNC, we rarely interacted.

Being able to collaborate and share talents across time zones has the potential to synergize the bowling community’s impact in ways disjointed bowling never could. So here’s my vote to find ways to keep it up, pandemic or not, temporary system crashes or not.

What were your own experiences remote bowling? What went well? What are your ideas for making the next event even better?

Posted on

(De)funding the Police – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 13

As case 13 explains, not all people who use the divisive catchphrase, “defund the police” actually want to abolish police departments. Some do. But many simply want to divert some funds to education, employment, social work and mental health resources. Why? Studies have shown that educational and employment equity better decreases crime. A better educated populace would intuitively be happier, more successful and therefore more law-abiding. And while cutting police budgets might give departments good reason to behave, it might also be a good idea to keep a few cops around.

However, case 13 doesn’t say much about reforming policing techniques and attitudes, which opens an opportunity for ethics bowlers to add something to the discussion. Many police forces take an overly militaristic approach to their work inappropriate for civilian policing, one that can unnecessarily escalate encounters and perpetuate a contentious culture.

Or so argues former police officer turned University of South Carolina law professor Seth Stoughton. Below is Stoughton’s TED talk on just that subject, followed by my own take on his argument. I’ll be discussing it with my ethics bowl team this weekend, and also sharing the TED vid from 0:15 – 2:17 and 10:00 – 12:30. Enjoy!

Posted on

Snopes for Public Reasoning: LogicCheck.net

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?

Posted on

Introducing the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals

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

Posted on

Dating After Prison – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 10

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.

The above excerpt is from Year of the Fighter: Lessons From My Midlife Crisis Adventure, my 2018 memoir on how an ethicist overcomes childhood bully shame by doing something he’d always dreamed of doing – competitively boxing and kickboxing.

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.

Posted on

Final Call for Ethics Bowl Book Submissions

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?

Posted on

Virtual Bowling Zen from A2Ethics

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.

Posted on

Factory Farming – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 1

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.