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.
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!
The following article, including the title, was written by ChatGPT. Why? Earlier this semester I caught a student using AI to complete their weekly reflection prompt in my Ethics Intro. I gave them a zero, but was encouraged by Ethics Olympiad (Australian) students, a retired mentor (thanks, Gary!) and others to try AI for myself, and think about how we might use it symbiotically – to think of it as a valuable aid rather than an enemy or competitor. Enjoy, Matt
Image generated by AI DALL-E 2 according to prompt, “ChatGPT as a moral philosopher typing a blog post for EthicsBowl.org”
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance and become more integrated into our daily lives, ethical questions about its use and development are becoming more pressing. One area where these questions are particularly relevant is in the field of applied ethics, where AI is being used to think through complex ethical cases. One example of this is Ethics Bowl, a competition in which teams of students analyze and debate ethical dilemmas. Some teams are now using AI tools to help them prepare for Ethics Bowl, raising important ethical questions about the role of AI in ethical decision-making.
On the one hand, using AI to analyze ethical cases could be seen as a positive development. AI tools can quickly identify relevant ethical principles and concepts, help teams to identify potential consequences of different courses of action, and provide guidance on how to approach difficult ethical decisions. This can be especially helpful for students who are new to the field of applied ethics and may not have as much experience thinking through complex ethical dilemmas.
However, there are also several potential ethical concerns associated with using AI to analyze ethical cases. One concern is that relying too heavily on AI could lead to a reduction in critical thinking skills. If students become overly reliant on AI tools to identify ethical principles and make decisions, they may be less likely to develop the skills needed to think through ethical dilemmas on their own. This could have negative implications for their future careers and their ability to make sound ethical decisions in a wide range of contexts.
Another concern is that AI may not always be able to accurately capture the nuances of ethical decision-making. Ethical decision-making often involves considering a wide range of factors, such as the consequences of different courses of action, the values and beliefs of different stakeholders, and the potential impact of decisions on different communities. AI may not be able to fully capture these nuances, which could lead to oversimplification of complex ethical dilemmas.
Additionally, there are concerns about the potential biases that may be present in AI tools. AI algorithms are only as unbiased as the data they are trained on, and if the data used to train the AI is biased, the AI may produce biased results. This could have negative implications for Ethics Bowl competitions, where unbiased analysis and decision-making are essential.
In conclusion, while using AI to analyze ethical cases may have some benefits, it also raises important ethical questions about the role of AI in ethical decision-making. As AI continues to develop and become more integrated into our lives, it will be important to carefully consider the ethical implications of its use in fields like applied ethics. Ultimately, the goal should be to use AI tools in a way that enhances our ability to make sound ethical decisions, while also preserving our ability to think critically and to recognize the nuances of complex ethical dilemmas.
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!
Our friends at UNC’s Parr Center recently announced an expansion of support resources via NHSEBAcademy. As the announcement mentioned, these include “some additional video content added to our Theater, including videos from the Parr Center’s exciting new collaboration with TED-Ed, and content from our partners at the APPE Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl.”
The Ted-Ed collaboration is big news. But what really caught my attention was the promise of live expert-judged scrimmaging.
“NHSEBAcademy’s Coaching Studio has been revamped and now offers on-demand appointments every day of the week and across multiple time zones. In November, the Studio will be updated to include an option for live, online practice scrimmages, moderated and judged by Ethics Bowl experts from the Parr Center. We’re also still working to assemble a fantastic slate of events for NHSEB community members in the NHSEBAcademy Live series, starting with our popular Ethics Bowl Essentials clinics next month, for which registration is now open. More events in this series will be announced later in the Fall, so please stay tuned.”
I know of no activity that better prepares teams for actual Ethics Bowls than scrimmaging. To the extent you can replicate the real thing, they’ll be that much more successful come showtime. And it doesn’t get much more realistic than this.
If you’re a participant or coach and would like to be kept in the loop, just visit NHSEBAcademy’s home page and scroll down to the bottom to sign up for email alerts. And thanks for the awesome and constantly-improving resources, Team Parr!
Michael Andersen, Volunteer Ethics Bowl Coach and Philosophy Club Adviser at the Vancouver School of Arts & Academics in Washington State, generously agreed to share the below philosophy club agendas. But more than mere agendas, I’d consider them full mini-curriculum.
I’ve come across quite a few pre-college philosophy learning materials. But I know of none anywhere that match Michael’s mix of gravitas, thoroughness and engagement. Videos, visuals, links to further resources? These are best-in-class resources, folks.
So if you need ideas on how to take your own Philosophy, Ethics Bowl or Ethics Olympiad club to the next level, look no further. And thanks as always for sharing, Michael!
Ever been in the middle of an Ethics Bowl round, heard a team or judge mention “Rawls” or the “Veil of Ignorance” and thought, “Who? What?”
Think of Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance (aka Original Position) thought experiment as an extension of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative as an extension of the Golden Rule. Neither equates to treating others the way they’d like to be treated. But thinking of them in these ways is smart because that’s how Rawls and Kant thought of them.
All three (Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative, Veil of Ignorance) share a commitment to treating like cases alike, and recognition that there’s nothing special about our perspective that privileges our personal interests. And despite the unnecessarily intimidating names, they’re basically ways to reduce bias by imagining ourselves in others’ shoes. That’s it – fancy names, but ultimately simple (and intuitively sound) concepts.
However, alluding to the Veil of Ignorance’s connections with related moral principles isn’t telling you how it works. For that, I offer brief clips from two of my audiobooks.
First, from the Involving Your Audience chapter of TheBest Public Speaking Book click here, and second, from the Third Parties chapter of Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell click here. Enjoy!
The 2022-2023 Regional NHSEB Regional Case Set went live Friday afternoon. Two cases that immediately caught my attention were #1, on the implications of Artificial Intelligences becoming conscious (Philosophy of Mind, anyone?), and #13, on a couple’s disagreement over how much risk to their Unborn Developing Human is too much.
In a nutshell, the mother is OK possibly catching COVID at work and lifting heavy stuff at home, whereas the father wants her to telework when a coworker has tested positive and has volunteered to cover the strenuous household chores. The question becomes, just how much weight should the father’s input carry?
It’s not perfect. For one, the title, “Our Baby, My Body” is awfully close to “My Body, My Choice,” steering analysis toward a predetermined conclusion. “Dismissing a Father’s Love” would have been just as bad in the other direction. A more neutral (but boring) alternative: “Properly Balancing Parental Autonomy During Pregnancy.”
However, I’m just glad it’s included at all, and optimistic that Ethics Bowl coaches, teams and judges won’t be inappropriately swayed by the title’s (surely unintentional) framing. Readers of the blog know that abortion is one of my favorite ethical issues, and that I’ve been encouraging case committees to include abortion cases for some time. So THANK YOU NHSEB Case Committee. #13 is a gentle, classy way to broach abortion ethics, and to test the waters for more direct discussions in the future.
In fact, let’s test the waters right here. Download the official set from NHSEB.unc.edu (click the Cases link at the top). But here’s #13 in full, all credit to the original authors. If you’re brave enough to share your initial thoughts, that’s what that Leave a Reply section is for (appears when you open articles individually).
2022-2023 NHSEB Regional Case #13. “Our Baby, My Body” [or “Properly Balancing Parental Autonomy During Pregnancy”]
Tom and Melinda are about to have a baby together. They are both committed to raising the child together as a family, and they have made many of the decisions about how they’re going to raise the child as a team. Recently, though, Melinda has been engaging in activities that Tom thinks are unnecessarily risky for the health of their future child. She has continued going into work instead of working from home when her employees have reported they are sick with COVID-19. Tom has mentioned that the most recent information shows that there are risks for the pregnancy if Melinda catches COVID-19, including a pre-term birth or stillbirth. She also continues to exert herself physically more than Tom thinks is necessary for her or healthy for the baby.
Tom believes that, since he is an equal partner in raising the child, he should have an equal say in how Melinda acts when it comes to the health of the child. He does not think it is unfair of him to tell Melinda that she needs to work from home when her co-workers are sick, or to insist that she stop exerting herself around the house and let him do the chores. After all, it is his child too, and just like all of the other decisions that they’ve made about how they are going to raise it, he thinks that the decisions Melinda makes that would affect the child should be equally open for discussion (and even potential veto).
Melinda, on the other hand, believes that Tom is being overbearing and controlling. She believes that, until the baby is born, it is her body, and she is free to do what she wants. As long as she is carrying their child, she says, her wants and desires will always outweigh Tom’s because he is not the one that has to live with the pregnancy. Tom is free to offer his input, and she will always take it into consideration out of respect for him as a partner, but the final decision is hers. She argues that Tom is being unfair and has no right to be upset when she acts contrary to his desires.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Are Tom and Melinda truly equal partners during the pregnancy, or do Melinda’s concerns for her own autonomy take precedence?
2. What sort of responsibilities does Melinda have toward Tom and his concerns as the father of the child she’s carrying?
3. Do Tom and Melinda’s respective shares in decision-making change after the baby is born? If so, how and why?
