Category: Coaching

Posted on

How Factual Assumptions Drive Moral Disagreement and What Ethics Bowlers Can Do about It – an Interview with Justin McBrayer

Progress on Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! continues, and one submission I found especially insightful was from Fort Lewis philosophy professor and author of Beyond Fake News: Finding the Truth in a World of Misinformation, Justin McBrayer. Justin explains how disagreement over basic facts can drive substantial moral disagreement, even among people with shared values, something Ethics Bowlers often neglect. He graciously agreed to an email interview – enjoy!

Matt: Justin, I’d like to begin by quoting you. “Even if two people share all and only the same ethical values, they might come to radically different decisions about how to behave and what is right and wrong. That’s because they might be starting from different viewpoints about what is true or how the world is. So just as we need Ethics Bowl to help people think through their value commitments, we need a focus on applied epistemology so that people can think clearly about what the world is like.” Your point here is clear, but can you give an example?

Justin: Yes, and I think this sort of disagreement is becoming more and more common. For example, in the aftermath of the Roe decision, I notice that lots of people disagree about whether an Unborn Developing Human can feel pain, whether they have futures, whether they are conscious of particular things, etc. Those are all non-value issues. Sometimes when people change their minds about these non-value facts, they change their positions on moral issues. For example, if you come to believe that a UDH can experience fear and feel pain after 26 weeks, you might change your stance on when abortion is morally permissible.

Matt: That’s an excellent point, and probably explains why so many are baffled by others’ inability to appreciate moral truths obvious to them. Two people could be equally compassionate. It’s just that they hold different assumptions about an Unborn Developing Human’s ability to experience pain, whether it constitutes an entity with a future like ours, when its nervous system is developed enough to have thoughts, etc. The same could be true for differing assumptions about how burdensome pregnancy can be, what degree of choice women exercise when voluntarily engaging in sex, etc.

I’m wondering if anything can be said for how Ethics Bowl might ameliorate, exacerbate or otherwise address this. Is there anything coaches or rules committees or judges can do to help participants better recognize when differing assumptions are driving people with similar values to opposing conclusions? I would think that Ethics Bowl minimizes the impact of factual differences by stipulating facts right there in the case. Teams are allowed to do outside research. But it’s not expected or usually rewarded. Still, I can imagine teams disagreeing starkly over outcomes – whether a policy would make the world safer, contribute to climate change, discourage law-breaking, etc.

Justin: I agree with the first point: if we stipulate certain non-value facts at the outset, that will focus the attention on the values in play. But from my limited experience, Ethics Bowl cases don’t do a good job of this. They need to explicitly say things like (a) assume that 10,000 people will be harmed by this product each year or (b) the company’s decision will produce X amount of greenhouse gas or (c) the consumer is aware of the fact that the product is nutritionally useless. If we make it really obvious that teams can’t challenge those opening assumptions, the dialectic will be directed towards the value propositions that animate various applied ethical dilemmas.

Matt: You’re right. Cases do often leave a great deal open for teams to interpret. And when their factual assumptions diverge, so too will their moral conclusions. The interaction helps. But with so little time within a round, we can only expect so much. Maybe this is something we should coach teams to probe during their commentary? “Team A, your analysis seems to assume X. However, we actually thought Y was more likely. Would you agree that if Y were more likely, you’d actually endorse a different position?” Something like that might help participants better empathize, understand, appreciate and engage during prep, bowl day and beyond. And maybe that’s an early step in working together to identify more or less credible claims?

Justin: Right, so insofar as a case does NOT stipulate a certain non-value fact, we should encourage teams and judges (a) to recognize the non-value assumptions each side makes, (b) offer challenges to those assumptions and (c) offer objections that ask the other side how their conclusion would change if the non-value facts were altered in such-and-such a way. While we don’t want to go too far down the road of having teams try to evaluate and determine non-value facts (e.g. is pollution the main driver of climate change?), we DO want them to see that applied ethical conclusions typically rely on a non-value premise in the argument. Change that premise, and you’ll change what follows from your moral principle.

Matt: Agreed that we don’t want to turn Ethics Bowl into Research Bowl. But also agreed that all involved should appreciate how easily like-minded, reasonable people can arrive at very different conclusions – just takes disagreement over one key fact. And simply illuminating and making that disagreement explicit would advance the discussion. Thank you for making this even clearer than you already did, and for the encouragement to our coaches, teams and judges to listen carefully for differing assumptions. If nothing else, go ahead and stipulate facts and go from there. “If, for the sake of argument, we assume that a UDH after 26 weeks can feel pain…”

Justin: If you want an additional example besides abortion, climate change, vaccines, or just about any other polarized issue works. If you assume the vaccine is effective, then such-and-such follows.  If you assume it’s not, then… Again, a difference of belief about non-values often lies behind what seems like intractable moral debate. And I agree with you that we don’t want to make it a research bowl. But we can do a better job of being cognizant about how our non-value assumptions often drive our value conclusions. Keep up the good work on the book!

Posted on

Ethics Bowl: CrossFit for Life

“Ethics Bowl is the intellectual equivalent of a CrossFit exercise workout; that is, it strenuously tones the mind and soul together.” – Andrew Cullison, Ethics Bowl Organizer, Coach and former Competitor

While traditional workouts can make you better at specific activities (heavier bench press, faster 5k), CrossFit – a full-body workout approach combining weight and endurance training, slow and fast-twitch muscle exercise, prioritizing functional athleticism – can transform you into a true athlete.

In chapter 8 of The Ethics Bowl Way, “Beyond Argument: Learning Life Skills Through Ethics Bowl,” longtime Ethics Bowl enthusiast Andy Cullison argues that Ethics Bowl produces alum who are similarly well-rounded in ways that prepare us for a successful life.

I like it. Ethics Bowl does indeed build resilient, courageous leaders, gently cultivates public speaking skill and improves moral decision-making – benefits applicable not only to bowl day, but life.

Ethics Bowl can reveal and correct our moral blind spots, illuminating neglected interests and heightening our moral sense. As Andy points out, the explicit requirement to proactively consider thoughtful objections may be one of its most important benefits, for this teaches humility, humanizes the “other” side, and encourages reconciliation – beneficial for interpersonal relationships, business relationships and democratic citizenship. An encouraging example shared by Andy:

“One of the best Ethics Bowl teams we have seen had two cocaptains: one was a leader of the College Republicans, the other founded the College Democratic Socialist Club (because the College Democrats weren’t ‘liberal enough’). The captains became great friends. We like to think that the fact that they developed their ethical awareness together, as team members, fostered their personal friendship” (66).

When it comes to public speaking, Andy notes how our approach uniquely “scaffolds the nurturing of these skills in ways that other ‘speaking’ cocurricular activities do not” (67). He’s right. Traditional debates often expect each team member to speak as frequently (and forcefully…) as their peers. But with Ethics Bowl, less experienced members can shape their team’s position during prep and limit their bowl-day involvement to conferral periods. Case mastery is just as important as verbal eloquence, and team members who prefer to leave the speaking to others may do so without point penalty or personal shame.

But as Andy argues, Ethics Bowl also teaches resilience, a master life skill. Despite our emphasis on collaboration, Ethics Bowl remains a competition, which means far more teams go home without a trophy than with one. However, losing teams continue to return, and Andy argues that this is largely because of the undeniable intrinsic benefits combined with participants’ private confidence that they’ve grown, performed admirably and deserve to be proud regardless of how a group of fallible judges may have scored them.

“The paradox at the heart of Ethics Bowl is that most students realize that there are rewards of the event that outweigh the tangible rewards of winning. That’s why so many teams that perennially finish in the bottom half or even quarter of the rankings show up year after year. These students have learned to uncover the pleasure of engaging in activity that is hard, that challenges them, in which they are the final judges of what they’ve learned” (70).

Last, Ethics Bowl transforms and empowers participants into courageous leaders. While CrossFit can ready our bodies for physical challenges, Ethics Bowl readies us for life.

“Preparing a student for life is about preparing them to be courageous, ethical leaders. That’s why Ethics Bowl is about so much more than learning how to win arguments. Ethics bowl truly is preparation for life” (71).

Excellent argument, Andy! And wonderful book, editors and friends Roberta Israeloff and Karen Mizell. Stay tuned for more articles on The Ethics Bowl Way. And be sure to check it out at Amazon if you haven’t already.

Posted on

Pain Junkies Validate Utilitarianism

The History Channel’s Kings of Pain is a glorified version of MTV’s Jackass. Rather than Steve-O launching bottle rockets from untold orifices, “wildlife biologists” allow spiders to inject them with venom, hornets to sting them, and snakes to bite them, all in the name of ratings. I mean science.

However, I won’t pretend to be too good to watch something like this. I’m a Johnny Knoxville fan all the way. And since Kings of Pain is ever-so-slightly more mature, I can enjoy it with my kids with slightly less guilt. (I’ll watch Jackass with my oldest, but with considerable guilt.)

And since we’re serious moral reasoners here, I was excited to see the “wildlife biologists” scoring their encounters according to criteria that would have made Jeremy Bentham proud.

Looky there: intensity, duration. Of course, one man’s 9.25 might be another man’s 8. But by averaging and contrasting the scores inspired by tarantulas and pythons, we can quantify how much pain to assign various encounters, thereby making that Utilitarian calculus thing practical after all. Imperfect, of course. But more precise than critics give the theory credit.

Now all we need is a comparable show devoted to quantifying experiences of intense pleasure! On HBO, perhaps?

Posted on

Ethics in a Nutshell Full Audiobook Now on YouTube

As I mentioned in a previous post, I recently took my nephew skydiving, and in the process decided to give away my books. (Facing mortality at the speed of gravity inspires clarity!)

My philosophical ethics primer, used by college, high school and even jr. high students on at least three continents, has been available on the Resources page in PDF here at EthicsBowl.org for several years. And I released the audiobook at Audible last summer. But as of this morning, the audiobook edition is now free and available to all on good old YouTube.

Enjoy! I hope this helps students lacking the stamina or time to read (reading wasn’t my #1 hobby growing up, either), as well as educators and Ethics Bowl coaches brave enough to teach them. Re-introducing philosopher’s approach to morality, now rather than in 100 pages, 100 minutes.

Handy Timestamps (also in description at YouTube):

Ch 1: Welcome 00:24

Ch 2: Ethics, Religion & Public Discourse 09:17

Ch 3: Why Ethics Isn’t Ice Cream 14:08

Ch 4: Three Key Distinctions 22:40

Ch 5: The Four Dominant Ethical Theories 30:36

Ch 6: All Things Considered 59:38

Ch 7: Argument by Analogy 1:07:35

Ch 8: Intuition, Reflection & Coherence 1:17:15

Ch 9: Conclusion 1:24:14

Lecture Notes 1:28:13

More Books by Matt Deaton 1:35:19

Further Reading 1:38:45

And don’t forget about the lecture videos and other resources at EthicsinaNutshell.org .

Posted on

Can the Number 7264281 Improve Ethical Analysis?

“Sweatshop Labor is Wrong Unless the Shoes are Cute.” Now there’s a provocative article title! In it, Paharia, Vohs and Deshpande argue that we’re more likely to make selfish judgments when we’re clear-headed. When our minds are fresh with computing power to spare, our ego inflates the force of reasons supporting what we desire. But when we’re mentally distracted, our subconscious has a tougher time rationalizing favored outcomes, and we’re more likely to endorse morally consistent and benevolent conclusions.

Know that the authors didn’t just speculate – they recruited more than a hundred people, asked half to memorize a 7-digit number, and then asked all to evaluate arguments justifying underpaying and overworking employees – specifically, to rank the ethical permissibility of going on a Caribbean resort vacation with questionable labor practices for their friends, but then also for themselves. The assumption – all participants would be motivated to excuse mistreating employees when imagining themselves enjoying the resort. But those trying to simultaneously remember “7264281” wouldn’t have the spare mental acuity to do so.

The result: participants who weren’t required to memorize the number were significantly more likely to excuse poor worker treatment when evaluating the trip for themselves, but evaluations of the vacation resort for their friends remained steady for both the cognitively burdened and unburdened group.

Notice how designing the experiment in this way (cognitively loaded vs. clear-minded participants, a Caribbean resort trip for someone else vs. you) sheds light on our egos’ tendency to rationalize when its our own imagined welfare at stake.

One upshot for ethics bowl is that the closer a case hits home, the more apt we probably are to evaluate it in a self-interested fashion. However, knowing this, we can re-evaluate our judgments, double-checking not only for perspective bias, but for our tendency to favor reasons, and possibly even ethical theories, that promote what we personally desire.

So the next time a case feels especially personal, take a step back, try remembering 7264281, and revisit it anew.

Last, should we expect a correlation between IQ and selfishness – the sharper and quicker witted more prone to rationalize? The same from the comparatively carefree? From seasoned meditators?

Maybe. But it seems that the wisest and most clear-minded among us tend to be the most morally mindful, or at least that’s been my experience befriending and working with applied ethicists, professional and amateur alike. Then again, this judgment itself could be another ego-driven rationalization… Time to remember 7264281 and try again.

Posted on

Potential Jackpots and Argument by Analogy

Argument by analogy is a powerful moral reasoning technique where our judgments about something clear are applied to something less clear, yet relevantly similar. Half asleep in bed this past Tuesday night, I was struck by a connection between lottery tickets and UDHs.

Imagine matching all five…

Oftentimes in the abortion debate, generally pro-choice authors emphasize how Unborn Developing Humans (or UDHs) are merely potential persons, rather than actual persons. They then quickly conclude that UDHs have very little value, and that abortions for most any reason are completely permissible. Sometimes they’ll invoke the language of rights, declaring, “Since UDHs aren’t persons, they have no right to life. And since UDH’s have no right to life, abortion is permissible — end of story.”

I’ve always found this puzzling. For one, honest ethicists arguing in good faith know full well sweeping rights claims are too coarse for the intricacies of real-life. But also because UDHs are the only thing that can grow into full persons, and often (if not usually) will become full persons if allowed.

That something with the potential to develop extremely high moral value (a person) already has very high moral value is intuitively compelling to me, but not everyone. However, he’s a basic analogy that helps clarify my thinking, and might inform and enrich yours.

The directions at Poweball.com read: “Select five numbers from 1 to 69 for the white balls; then select one number from 1 to 26 for the red Powerball.” Matching 1 or more of the first 5 numbers to the randomly drawn numbers entitles you to some money. But matching all five plus the Powerball wins the jackpot, which as of this writing sits at $181 million.

Imagine that you buy a ticket. Before the numbers are called, it’s probably worth less than the purchase price in light of the extremely low probability you’ll win (this is why many people call lotto paying your “idiot tax”). But imagine matching not only the first three numbers, not only the first four numbers, but all five white numbers. Whatever money you’d be entitled to for getting that far, you’d now have a 1 in 26 chance of winning $181 million. Whether you’re a greedy glutton or dream of philanthropy, that’s a LOT of money, and could fund a whole lot of ethics bowl expansion!

Would you say that since the ticket is merely a potential jackpot winner (with a 1 in 26 chance), rather than an actual jackpot winner, it’s therefore completely worthless?

Of course not. You’d guard it carefully, and with good reason. Even matching two numbers would get your attention. But three? Four? All five?

And so assuming conceived UDHs have a 1 in 26 chance (or greater) of growing into full persons (if genetically normal and in a healthy womb, they do), and assuming the value of a person exceeds or is somewhere in the ballpark of a Powerball jackpot, you should agree that UDHs can’t be casually dismissed as valueless clumps of cells.

Of course, this doesn’t imply abortions are never permissible — doesn’t mean that the high value of a UDH can’t be overridden. All it means is that the reasons needed to justify an abortion must be weighty enough to destroy something with already substantial value, and that anyone desiring to dismiss UDHs because they’re “merely” potential persons is probably a crummy Powerball player.

Posted on

Easy First Ethics Journal Article

For most any issue, professional ethicists have thought about and published quality ideas. Rather than trying to solve an ethics bowl case from scratch, why not leverage existing wisdom? There’s no reason to defer to or agree with every argument out there. But your team’s analysis will almost certainly be enhanced, and judges will almost certainly be impressed, when they review and cite the arguments of contemporary philosophers. But where to begin?

Here’s Dr. Jim receiving some public praise for doing what he does best

Recently, former student, friend and medical resident, Jim Dolbow, invited me to comment on and co-publish a brief piece on patient modesty during emergency procedures. The main thrust: patients should either be told that they’ll be exposed during “code” treatments, or medical professionals should do more to cover their private areas during CPR, pulse checks and the like. Why? To honor patient consent and respect their dignity.

Less than two pages long, “If They Only Knew” was just released in the Journal of Patient Experience. An easy way to ease into the use of applied ethics journal articles, check it out here, and if you or your team would like to discuss, just let me know.

Posted on

Zoom-based Ethics Bowl Speaking Tips

In January of 2019 I shared an Ethics Bowl Public Speaking Tips article. Knowing what you’re talking about, being yourself and practicing remain the foundation of smooth, confident delivery. But back then, almost all bowls were in-person. Today, almost all are remote.

I actually wrote a book on public speaking (now also on audiobook), revised it in 2021, and chapter 12: Using Technology, actually has a section on remote presenting. Here’s an excerpt that should help whether you’re an organizer, judge, moderator, competitor or coach. There are even a few ethics bowl references – enjoy!

This handsome creature is an Urban Honey Badger, honoring an assertiveness drill in chapter 6: Conquering Nervousness. Freaky head, but his body is from a famous Socrates statue (not Rodin’s “The Thinker” – common mistake).

Whether it’s via Zoom, Citrix, YouTube Live or good old teleconference, the challenge of holding a remote audience’s attention increases tenfold. It’s tough enough for people to resist checking their phones when they’re sitting right in front of you. Imagine the multitasking when they’re out of sight.

You’ll therefore have to up your audience engagement game, but your job as remote presenter is actually easier in many ways. If it’s audio only, you won’t have to worry about your silent message (though you won’t be able to use it to your advantage, either). And while you should still prepare a clear presentation and rehearse, you won’t need to master your material quite as well as if you were delivering it in person—can always pull up reference materials, refer back to your notes, and have a timer in front of you to ensure you stay on schedule (though definitely still rehearse, still know what material is coming before it arrives).

This past January, I was honored to be invited to discuss my Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages with Chinese Ethics Bowl students. Thanks to tensions over Taiwan, economic competitiveness and the coronavirus (dang, China, you really screwed the pooch on that one), our governments aren’t the closest allies. Many consider an eventual Sino-American war inevitable. So I viewed the session as an opportunity to befriend ethics-minded future leaders, and maybe, in some small way, decrease the chances that my grandkids will be fighting China in World War III.

I asked the host if there was anything I might do or say to express my goodwill and respect, and he suggested a line from a famous Chinese poem. So my first words were, “Sheeyan chew woo yuan tchin, wa leeee, shan weigh lin.” Given my Tennessee drawl and the fact that I know zero Mandarin, I’m certain I butchered this badly. But it was supposed to roughly translate, “People can become friends and neighbors, even when they’re on the other side of the world.” The attendees seemed to appreciate the effort, and I very much enjoyed discussing argument by analogy, why we can’t base morality on legality, and other cool ideas with them. You can actually watch it yourself. Just search YouTube for “Deaton Ethics Bowl China Seminar.”

A couple of months after that, I was asked to kickoff a series of trainings for Ethics Olympiad participants in Australia. Another chance for cultural exchange, I opened by pulling out a globe. “If you were to get on a plane and fly all the way across the Pacific Ocean and land on the West Coast of the US, then drive east for 3-to-4 days, you’d make your way to the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in the great state of Tennessee, which is where I live. What do Tennesseans do for fun? Well, lots of things, but in addition to soccer and ATV-riding, my own family enjoys trips to the mountains. Here’s a picture of us swimming at Indian Boundary Lake in the Cherokee National Forest.” About that time, I (and everyone else) heard a young man who’d forgotten to mute his mic say, “No, he’s still talking about his stupid family…” Ha! The Zoom screen was filled with faces, and from the look on his, he really wanted to blend in with the crowd. But since his mic was hot, his box lit up, I stopped, squinted to read his name, and immediately called him out. “Mickey Boffsetter? My stupid family? Did you not hear the host explain that I’m a kickboxer?” I rolled my chair backwards to the desk behind me and retrieved my “Fight of the Night” boxing trophy. “Do you see this? Don’t make me come to Australia.”

I was of course smiling and kidding, and he was of course mortified—tried to apologize and make excuses. “Sir, what I meant was…” But I just cut him off and poured it on thicker, which the audience loved—they were rolling with surprised laughter.

Another remote meeting icebreaker example, I once led a series of online workshops for offices interested in improving communication. Some had interpersonal issues (aka they hated each other), so I chose a lighthearted opener: Name That Tune. The first song: a Janet Jackson B-side track from 1984, “Communication.” Some recognized her voice, but no one got the song. The second was Led Zeppelin’s “Communication Breakdown,” which a few middle-aged white dudes knew. And the last was The Beastie Boys’ “Sure Shot” from their Ill Communication album, which no one but me admitted to ever hearing, let alone liking.

By the end most of the attendees were at least grinning, everyone knew the session’s focus would be improving communication, and that I was an approachable host with excellent musical taste.

Another example: I once gave a webinar on business ethics to a mixed group of human resource specialists, website designers and managers. To get them in the ethical thinking mood, I began with what philosophers, attorneys and fans of NBC’s “The Good Place” know as the classic trolley scenario.

Imagine seeing a runaway trolley about to crash into and kill five track workers. You then notice that you’re standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto another track, sparing the first five, but killing another worker. What should you do? Stand by and allow the original five to die? Or pull the lever, save the five, but effectively kill the one?

I then asked an open-ended question. “What do you think a person in this situation should do, and why?” This led to a conversation on the differences between psychological predictability, legal permissibility, and moral rightness, and opened the participants’ minds in ways a poll or monologue never could have. When we got to the case study on employee privacy, I had no trouble getting folks to discuss, which was my goal all along.

In cases of remote audience disengagement emergency, one somewhat mean tactic is to ask a question and call on attendees by name (depending on the software, you should be able to see their names right there on the screen). Once you’ve called on a couple, everyone will pay attention so they don’t get caught dozing. But again, this is mean, so if you do it, be gentle, confess a time that you were called on and didn’t know the answer, and mail everyone chocolate afterwards.

However, all the chocolate in the world won’t help if your presentation is bad. So remember to apply the basics: thoroughly research your topic and organize your material, punch up your key points with emotionally potent examples, and practice, practice, practice. Enunciate and speak directly into the mic (confirmation that your audience can hear you is a good idea). If you’re using a webcam, your silent message is back in play, and now includes everything in the background, so make sure the camera is capturing your face and torso—not just the top of your hair and ceiling. Unless you have hair like Vanilla Ice did in the 90s, in which case zoom in on that glorious mane.

Look at the camera as much as you can to simulate eye contact. Looking at the lens rather than your screen will make your delivery feel more intimate, though the audience may not be able to articulate why.

Last, minimize background noise and distractions. With a four-year-old on the loose, my home office isn’t the most silent of studios. But Noah’s noisy playtimes are a blessing and burden I gladly accept, and the rest of the family does an excellent job keeping him quiet(ish) anytime I’m leading an important call.

In fact, the last time someone crashed a remote meeting on my end the culprit wasn’t kids, but livestock. An unseasonably warm February afternoon, I had my office windows open, and when my neighbor delivered some hay (did I mention that I live in the sticks?), his cows thanked him with moos of joy. I thought they were too far away for my mic to pick up. But their bellows of lunchtime joy echoed throughout the valley, all the way to the attendees’ speakers. “Matt, are those cows in the background?” “Yeah, sorry about that. They were hungry.”

For more, see The Best Public Speaking Book, 2nd Edition, available in paperback, Kindle and audiobook. Desk copies for educators are free upon request.

Posted on

The Rawls Bias Scrubber

Magritte-inspired Rawls art by philosopher Renee Bolinger – I have this print hanging in my home office!

Most ethics bowl teams are familiar with the four dominant ethical theories: Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Sometimes you’ll hear mention of a political philosophy such as Libertarianism. And there’s rumor that a team once tried to base a case analysis on the work of Hegel (not advised!).

However, John Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance / Original Position is a viable, underused approach (far more viable than anything to do with Hegel). It’s especially useful when a team first begins analyzing a case or as a double-check against latent bias as competition nears. How does it work?

Here’s an excerpt from Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments where I introduce the approach. Note that Rawls considered it an extension of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Kant considered his Categorical Imperative an extension of the Golden Rule. So if this feels faintly like treating others the way they’d like to be treated, it kinda is – an innovative way to imagine yourself in multiple others’ shoes. Enjoy!  

Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell Chapter 10: Third Parties

Whether wealthy or broke, healthy or sick, gay or straight, people tend to prefer policies that benefit them personally. Even when we try to be objective, rich black men wind up preferring policies that advantage rich black men. Working-class whites wind up preferring policies that benefit working-class whites.

This presents a problem. Our conclusions are supposed to be the product of logic, not power. However, what if there were a way to transcend our clouding biases?

The Golden Veil

Out of the corner of your eye you spot a luxurious gold curtain floating in mid-air. Across the top reads a mysterious Lord of the Rings-style inscription. It’s not written in a recognizable language. But somehow you know it says, “Veil of Ignorance.”

Curious, you pull it aside and step past. A flash of light dims to a soft glow. You know you were just reading about abortion ethics. But you can’t remember where you were. In fact, you can’t remember much of anything about yourself—your name, race, gender, income, occupation, education, religious commitments, political allegiances, handicaps, talents, hobbies, passions, phobias. Not even your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Holding up a hand to inspect your skin color, you can only see a shade of gray. Feeling your body to determine your sex, your brain won’t say.

Dumbfounded, yet oddly at peace, you see that I’ve followed you. We both admit an overwhelming desire to discuss abortion. But we can’t remember if we’re generally for or against it, what our family and colleagues expect us to think about it or how we ourselves might be impacted by it.

You suggest that we revisit the Rate That Abortion exercise. We do, and while we’re happy with our scores, they’re definitely different than before.

We discuss the nature of the conception, the mother’s interests, the UDH’s value, the child’s quality of life and the father’s autonomy. On some level, we want our conclusions to benefit us personally. But blocked from knowing who we are, we’re prevented from gaming the analysis in our favor.

Recognizing that personal preferences should have no bearing on morality, we agree that whatever we decide behind this magic golden veil should govern our views when we return to the real world. We know that we may not like what we’ve decided here. But we shake hands nonetheless, promising to promote whatever conclusions we’ve drawn from this enlightened perspective.

20th century American political philosopher John Rawls designed this “Original Position” thought experiment as a sort of reasoning machine.[1] Issues go in, more objective than usual answers come out. His primary focus was the basic structure of society, or what a nation’s constitution would ideally guarantee. But the method can be applied to any issue, including abortion.

 I’ll save the full exposition of Rawls for Political Philosophy in a Nutshell (forthcoming 2025, maybe?).The idea here is to offer his approach as a supplement. If you didn’t know if you were male or female, Republican or Democrat, Baptist or Agnostic, rape victim or expecting father, how might your analyses change?

In fact, how might your analyses change if you didn’t know if you were an impacted third party? Everyone’s interests should matter some. The question is, how much?

Give Rawls’s approach a try as you consider (and reconsider) ethics bowl cases. We all have our biases, and there’s no way to root them out completely. But imagining what we might think if we could scrub them away can get us closer to an objective perspective. Desk copies of the book are free for educators — just ask. And if a 20-minute lecture vid would help, click here.

[1] Rawls wrote several books, but for a thirty-page synopsis see his “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Summer, 1985) pages 223-251. Or find my twenty-minute lecture vid on Sandel’s Justice: Chapter 6 at youtube.com/MattDeatonPhD

Posted on

Trust the Science – NHSEB 2021-2022 Regionals Case 2 Guest Analysis

Enjoy this guest analysis by our friend Coach Michael Andersen on responsible scientific journalism – something that, as Mr. A explains, is trickier than one might assume…

Hola, filosofos.  Similar to last week’s case “Just the Facts,” this week we’re looking into the ethics of journalism with Case #2 “Trust the Science”; however, the focus will instead examine the ethical responsibilities of science reporters attempting to convey complex and evolving expert knowledge about the virus’s evolution and health advice during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Please start by reading the case and the Discussion Qs.  I’ve provided two brief Pre-Discussion videos to set the stage for our examination of this case (linked below).  Please watch these after you’ve read the case and consider the Discussion Qs—but BEFORE our meeting.

P.S.  To continue to help you use the MindMup 2.0 extension in Google Drive to map your team’s position on a case, I’ve linked below another Thinker Analytix video called “Example: Map an Argument with MindMup.”  Teacher Nate does a great job in showing you with this sample how to map out a sample argument.

Today’s Discussion Topic

⦾  What is the ethical responsibility of science reporters when discussing something like the COVID-19 pandemic? 

⦾  Is it ever ethically acceptable for science reporters to withhold information in the interest of the public good?

Pre-Discussion Resources
  • (Video) “What are Journalism Ethics?” @ National Endowment for Democracy. (12-10-2019) “Journalism ethics comprise standards and codes of conduct journalists and journalistic organizations aspire to follow.  Principles of ethical journalism vary from place to place and context to context.  The ability of journalists to adhere to ethical norms depends heavily on a constellation of often competing interests and forces they cannot control, including government interference, economic realities and technical limitations.  However, standards typically include accuracy, objectivity, transparency, accountability, comprehensiveness, fairness and diversity.” [4:34] 
  • (Video) “Ethical considerations for reporting on COVID-19” @ The International Journalists’ Network  (6-11-2020).  “Since the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) a pandemic, more and more journalists around the world have been pulled in to report on the frontlines of the global crisis.  Understanding how to confront ethical considerations is important to present a balanced, fair and accurate report of what’s happening during the pandemic.” [0:58]

NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #2. Trust the Science

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case
  • What is the moral question?  What makes this an ethical issue? 

Like most Ethics Bowl cases, Case 2 “Trust the Science” may appear at first glance more simple on the surface than it actually is.  Many students might be tempted to think, “What’s the big deal?  Journalists should just report the best and most recent science available, cite their sources, and make it readable enough for the general public.  Why all the fuss?”  Yet a more nuanced picture comes into play once you study the historical, economic and psychological dynamics of journalism a bit more closely.

It would be ideal for science writers if scientific literacy in America was better than it actually is.(a)  As a result, responsible journalists are faced with the issue of translating sometimes very complex research—like the epidemiological evidence of the SARS Covid-19 virus’ rapid evolution into unique (and more virulent) strains.  This task is harder than you might imagine.  On the one hand, translate the research in an overly simplified way, and you could be accused of “dumbing down” the evidence or glossing over important details in the scientific findings; yet, on the other hand, stay more faithful to the actual complexity of the research findings and you risk losing most of your audience or sounding “elitist.”  Hitting the “sweet spot” of scientific detail in your reporting can be a formidable task, requiring a lot of back and forth with the experts whose research you cite, as well as a deep familiarity with the education levels of your reading public.  Senior Contributor Ethan Siegal of Forbes recently put it like this: “This fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be scientifically literate, and the accompanying, even if unintentional, devaluation of actual expertise, is in large part why so many of us mistrust and misunderstand science today.  We can correct our course, but only if we understand what it actually means to be scientifically literate.”(b)  So, in addition to the writing challenges already mentioned, there’s the complication that the target concept of “science literacy” is, itself, an idea about which there’s varying degrees of shared understanding in the journalism community.

Another complication here involves the evolving standards of journalistic excellence that have shifted over time in the past several decades, together with the increasingly hyper-competitive and tumultuous economic landscape that science reporters and their editors must contend with.(c )(d) The pressure to stay afloat economically in a competitive market, coupled with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the vast distractions of the internet and social media, an increasingly-polarized American society, and especially recent hostility toward the press by populist politicians, have led to a lot of pressure to market stories as well worth your (limited and possibly hostile) attention.  As the case description notes, “…even the most reputable media still rely on gaining consumers through attention-grabbing headlines and engaging content, [so] you have a recipe for confusion.”  Add to this picture a widespread distrust in some quarters of the public of the reliability of science news, or science itself as a source of knowledge (regardless of whether that reputation is deserved).  Science journalists understandably struggle to contend with all of these social and economic forces as they research, compose, and publish their stories.  And science reporting on (and during) the Covid-19 pandemic is no exception: let’s not forget that good reporting means getting out into the world to interview sources, confirm factual accuracy, and follow up on leads—necessitating an increased risk to a journalist’s exposure to Covid-19 over weeks or months of investigative reporting.  [See optional sources # 2 & #5 below]  Ethics Bowl teams that gloss over these complexities in their position on Discussion Qs #1 and #2 risk facing a barrage of clarifying questions from judges and the other team.

Psychologically, there’s another series of hurdles for science reporters covering the Covid-19 pandemic.  People are dying, or have died, in the hundreds of thousands (even in the millions worldwide).(e)  The numbers of deaths and subsequent ripple effects are staggering and probably overwhelm most people’s ability to martial emotions of care or to make sense of the loss, especially as the numbers continue to rise and no definitive end to the pandemic is in sight.(f) (g)  Science journalists risk sounding indifferent to this widespread suffering if their stories lack a tone of empathy or suggest a tone of blame (due to some sectors of the public’s irresponsible behavior regarding precautionary measures like masking, social distancing or vaccination).  Especially tricky for science writers who seek to correct the public’s misconceptions about preventative measures or vaccine safety is the Backfire Effect, wherein some segments of the population double down on their false beliefs in response to corrective measures (although, to be fair, recent research on this cognitive bias is inconclusive).(h) (i)  Ethics Bowl teams who strive to articulate the moral dimension of this case accurately should deliberate with some care on these historical, economic and psychological dynamics of science reporting.  

Discussion Q#2 explicitly brings the moral dimension of Case 2 “Trust the Science” into focus, proposing more directly a science reporter’s choice of “withholding information in the interest of the public good.”  Again, a first-pass response might be, “No, that’s wrong, because withholding important information is, at best, a form of paternalism, or, at worst, a kind of deception or manipulation of the reading audience.”  But as any veteran social media user should know by now, always revealing the absolute unvarnished truth of a matter might not be the wisest approach, given some audiences.  And therein is the thorny issue, no?  If repeated past evidence has shown that wide swaths of Americans have either consistently misinterpreted or distorted scientific evidence, or influential pundits with a vested interest in spinning the facts to suit an established narrative consistently twist the important truths of the evidence, or even if the evidence itself (or the implications of it) are bewilderingly complex, then science journalists—in some situations at least—may have some justification for “withholding information in the interest of the public good.” (j)  Your team should discuss this dynamic and decide which position makes the most sense, given the evidence and reasonable considerations about the way the public (or bad actors in the media) react to controversial scientific findings.  

You could also consider how science reporters and their editors might not be in the ideal position to forecast accurately what “is in the interest of the public good”—given the imperfect record of both the scientific community and science reporting in the past.(k)  Moreover, is “the public good” always immediately obvious to anyone at the time of reporting or writing on public health crises like the Covid-19 pandemic?  Sure, some health risks or behavioral consequences can be reasonably verified or forecasted; however, the challenge of balancing individual liberties with personal sacrifices for wider public health has been especially tricky for public officials.(l) (m)  So, while science reporters might be well placed to verify the accuracy and implications of Covid-19-related research, knowing how to communicate the important and evolving complexities of said research—or whether to withhold parts of it to avoid unnecessary confusion—involves weighty decisions about the public’s right to know, the public’s capacity to process the information, and how the information may play out once released.  Discuss with your team which approaches for science journalists are likely to safeguard the public’s interest most effectively, who science reporters ought to consult when releasing (or withholding) sensitive information, and the reasoning you rely on to address these concerns.  

I predict that Consequentialist or Deontological ethical frames are likely to influence your moral reasoning in this case, or perhaps also a Care Ethics approach to the concerns mentioned above.  Whatever approach to ethical reasoning you take, recall what Dr. Sager at PSU said about relying on any normative Ethical Theory for Ethics Bowl: “Ethical theory provides a toolkit to deepen and sharpen how we think about ethical cases.  It does not provide a blueprint for analyzing or presenting cases.”  In other words, use appropriate ethical frameworks to help you diversify and/or deepen your stated reasons for your team’s position, but never simply name drop a philosopher or ethical frame in an attempt to add credibility to your argument.  Try not to get overwhelmed with your options here either.  Begin by discussing, then articulating as clearly as you can, the answer to the question, What’s a good reason to believe this position? for each of your team’s proposed answers to Discussion Qs # 1 and #2.  Maybe it’s beneficial foreseeable consequences that justify your supporting reason.  Maybe it’s an appeal to a universally-held right or principle that does the justification work.  Or maybe it’s an appeal to forms of care, compassion, empathy or relationships that all families or workplaces deal with when facing Covid-19 precautions, restrictions or concerns raised by scientific research.

Finally, regarding Discussion Q #3, I will keep my tips brief (given this already-long Tips article).  On the surface, it may seem obvious for science journalists to collaborate with the government on reporting pandemic data; however, considering the significant pressure that a few public health departments at the state or federal level have faced from some elected officials, the question of how much, if at all, to collaborate with governments will depend on the quality and transparency of the government’s response to scientific research.  In some countries, science journalists face significant danger to their persons or their careers by challenging an official government stance on pandemic-related public outreach, safety protocols, or quarantine policies.(n)  A position that takes these risks into account is likely to be stronger than merely issuing a general “Yes, they should collaborate” message.

Good luck in your collaborative thinking! 😉 

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips  Footnotes

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study
  1. (Article) “What Should Health Science Journalists Do in Epidemic Responses?. @ AMA journal of ethics.  By Katherina Thomas and Alpha Daffae Senkpeni. AMA journal of ethics 22.1 (2020): 55-60.
  1. (Video)  “Journalists adjust to unprecedented conditions during COVID-19.” @ CGTN America. (4-7-2020|). “In times of crisis, the need for journalism is more important than ever. The demand for information spikes, as it has during the coronavirus pandemic. But reporting has become more challenging, and many media professionals are risking their safety to do their job. CGTN’s Karina Huber reports.” [2:14]
  1. (Article)  “Science center’s principles offer guidance to reporters covering complicated COVID-19 issues.” @ Covering Health — Association of Health Care Journalists | Center For Excellence In Health Care Journalism. By Tara Haelle (August 16, 2021). 
  1. (Video)  “Mei Fong & Daniel Lippman: Ethics, Journalism, & COVID-19.” @ Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (5-1-2020) “The Center for Public Integrity’s Mei Fong and Politico’s Daniel Lippman discuss the role of ethics in the work of journalists, focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic.” [7:05]
  1. (Video) “COVID-19 impact on journalism under spotlight | South African Broadcasting Corporation” @ SABC News. (6-27-2021). “At least one thousand five hundred journalists have died of COVID-19 in over seventy countries. According to the Press Emblem Campaign, in May alone, over 200 journalists succumbed to the virus. Bringing vital information to citizens during a pandemic hasn’t been easy. And its led to calls in many countries for media workers to be moved up the vaccination queue.” [4:12] 
  1. (Article) “ Media ethics, safety and mental health: reporting in the time of Covid-19” @ Ethical Journalism Network. (3-18-2020) By Hannah Storm, EJN Director. 
  1. (Article) “Tips for professional reporting on COVID-19 vaccines.” @ WHO. (7 December 2020) World Health Organization.
  1. (Video) “Digital Spread of Pandemic Misinformation and Lies, Part 1” @ AMA Journal of Ethics  (Jul 22, 2020) “Dr Vish Viswanath talks about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation through digital platforms and social media.” [18:05]
  1. (Video + Transcript)  “Personal and social drivers of vaccine hesitancy.” @ SciLine. June 9, 2021. “The United States is one of the few countries in the world with enough COVID-19 vaccine doses to protect the vast majority of its populace. Yet hesitancy about vaccines generally, and COVID vaccines in particular, is stalling uptake. SciLine’s media briefing covered the role of social values and personal belief systems, including religion, in people’s decisions to get vaccinated or not; the factors driving parental choices about whether to vaccinate their children; and how public health messages and policies can influence vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Scientific experts briefed reporters and took questions on the record.” [59:28]
  1. (Video) “COVID-19, Science, and the Media: Lessons Learned Reporting on the Pandemic | Panel Discussion + Q & A” @ Petrie-Flom Ctr| Harvard U. (Oct. 26, 2021) ”As scientists and public health experts worked to understand the [Covid-19] virus, reporters worked to communicate to the public the state of the knowledge — an ever-shifting ground.  From the transmission debate, to the origins investigation, to changes in mask guidance, to vaccine safety concerns, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a particularly precarious nexus of science, politics, journalism, social media, and policy. This panel discussion reflected on this tenuous situation, potential areas of improvement in pandemic reporting, and lessons learned from recent experience.” [1:07.03]
  1. (Scholarly Article) “Journalists on COVID-19 Journalism: Communication Ecology of Pandemic Reporting.” @ American Behavioral Scientist (2-5-2021) By Perreault, Mildred F., and Gregory P. Perreault. ABS 65.7 (2021): 976-991.
  1. (Scholarly Article) “Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic.” @  Stem cell reports. By Turner, Leigh, et al. Stem cell reports (2021).
Related Ethics Bowl Cases

2015-16 Regional HSE201B Case #8. Reporting on a Scandal: “The editor of the high school’s newspaper learns that a community service group has not functioned according to school rules: they awarded service hours in exchange for money raised.  The leader of the club expresses regret and asks the editor not to publish the allegations because they will hurt his chances of college admission.  How should the editor weigh her journalistic responsibilities against a student’s right to privacy?”