Category: Coaching

Posted on

Just the Facts – NHSEB 2021-2022 Regionals Case 11 Guest Analysis

Another excellent analysis from our friend Coach Michael Andersen in Washington state, prepping his (very lucky) team for the Oregon High School Ethics Bowl. Thanks as always, Michael! And thanks to your team for sharing your superb coaching with the broader ethics bowl community.

Buenas dias, filosofos.  This week, with Case # 11 “Just the Facts,” we’re looking into the ethics of journalism, the desirability of objective reporting, and whether news organizations have an ethical duty to maintain a certain relationship to the general public.

Today’s Discussion Topic

⦾  Do news organizations have an ethical duty to maintain a certain relationship to the general public? 

⦾  If so, what is the nature of that relationship? 

⦾  What, if any, is the value of objectivity in journalism?

Pre-Discussion Resources
  • (Video) “How to choose your news – Damon Brown” @ TedEd  (6-4-14). “How do we choose which news to consume? Get the scoop on how opinions and facts affect the news and how to tell them apart.” [4:48] 
  • (Video) “How Journalists Minimize Bias” @ Facing History.org  (6-4-14).  “Journalists discuss the idea of bias and explain the processes they follow to combat bias in their reporting.” [6:31, Transcript PDF]

NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #11. Just the Facts

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

Grasping the moral dimension of this case may require you to step back and look at the broader picture of the journalism profession—it’s history here in America (and elsewhere), and especially with recent trends toward sensationalism, bias, corporate influence, and political polarization in news reporting. Surely, citizens of a democracy should care about whether the journalism they rely on for a healthy participation in government, or in other areas of social life, offers a quality (accurate, insightful) or shoddy (distorting, manipulative) view on the wider world.  We have a shared interest in this project of improving journalism standards, either indirectly through our consumer habits (i.e., which news outlets we pay for or routinely tune in to) or more directly (e.g., through letters to the editor, calling in to radio shows, lobbying for stricter legislation governing news outlets, etc.).  

The goal of robust objectivity or neutrality standards for professional news outlets is a moral issue because we need to trust these sources of information, and their reputation matters for their own sense of integrity, as well as our collective perception of it.  (After all, journalists are people too, and they presumably care about the quality of the work they do, which provides them a meaningful sense that their work is worthwhile.  Likewise, as citizens our sense of consulting the news to be informed must produce a feeling that such activity is worthwhile, and that the alternative—ignorance and apathy—is a worse option for us all.  These ethical sources of meaning depend on the aforementioned standards of journalistic professionalism, since such standards provide the foundation of our trust that a news outlet’s reporting activity will result in truthful, insightful news.)  So, consider trust and integrity as moral compass points that shape most people’s moral intuitions about the credibility of news outlets and the role they play in forming public opinion.

Clearly, Q1 refers to the “ethical duty” that news organizations owe to the general public, and Q3 inquires about “the value of objectivity”; so the case authors are obviously encouraging you to consider what is at stake morally for the parties involved (and more broadly for our society’s regard for the role the Press in a vibrant democracy).  The case description notes how editors either fired, restricted, or banned these reporters when and where their personal histories with the topics reported on were seen to jeopardize the perceived integrity of the news organizations employing them.  Given the reporters’ public history with these controversial topics (deemed a source of bias that compromised the objectivity and neutrality of their reporting), were these reactions by the news outlets warranted, in your team’s opinion?  Or would an alternative approach to the situation be more morally defensible?  

Consider too how trust and integrity are in tension with the value of fairness (as a form of justice).  Fairness (as a form of justice) seems like an obvious moral concern for those sympathetic to the reporters’ perspective—since they clearly feel that their jobs and reputations were unfairly sacrificed “to protect the objectivity and neutrality of the reporting in question” (or at least the public’s perception of these ideals).  If these reactions by their employers were indeed unjustly discriminatory, then fairness (as a form of justice) would be the anchor moral concept of any argument explaining that position.  An interesting and parallel point here: one might also argue that trust and integrity go both ways: that the leaders of news outlets have a duty within their organizations to maintain an atmosphere of trust and integrity among their corps of reporters, since they won’t attract quality talent for long if these virtues are lacking in their day-to-day operations.  Discuss with your team if an ideal balance of these values—trust, integrity and fairness—is achievable to arrive at the most morally defensible handling of these situations when they arise.

Maybe the goal of a robust journalism ethics can take cues from the field of law?  Lawyers and judges typically recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal connection to the defendant or conflict of interest in the case’s outcome.  A standard set of courtroom protocols ensures that these lawyers or judges are properly vetted from the procedures governing such cases, thereby maintaining credibility of the justice system as a whole (well, in theory at least).  Should all journalists similarly recuse themselves from reporting on topics about which they exhibit a strong personal investment?  How would such potential conflicts of interest be reliably determined, and what threshold of a reporter’s “personal investment” would necessitate recusal?  Is their editor’s judgment sufficient?  Is there a similar concern for the editors’ own biases?  Some might view such a system of journalistic recusal as unnecessary to ensure “objective reporting.”  After all, reporting on a controversial story isn’t quite the same as serving as a lawyer or judge in a criminal case, they might claim.  What do you think?  Are there common standards of practice for reporters that could be instituted to allow them to report on an issue, even though the reporter in question has strong personal convictions or personal history related to the topic?

An intriguing sidebar issue in philosophy, sociology and psychology is whether the ideals of objectivity and neutrality that govern most professional investigative sciences or practices can, in fact, present a distorting—rather than reliable—picture of reality.  When such investigations involve social and personal realities (like political injustice, racism or sexism) charged with strong emotional content and subjective experience, the ideal of extracting one’s point of view from the messy details of life to that of a neutral spectator, removed and non-committed to the phenomena at hand, strikes many critics as outdated.  [See Resources #2 and #6 below for more details.] 

A fourth value (or virtue) is mentioned in the case description worth deliberating on: “What is better, say critics of objectivity, is to report the facts while also acknowledging one’s (limited and biased) point of view.  This is a sign of humility, and it may also have the benefit of opening up more ethical reporting standards.”  How, if at all, should humility play a role in moderating decisions about a news organization’s attempts to strive for objectivity—and thereby attain not just a semblance of institutional integrity but a genuine form of it?  Can a set of journalism protocols be developed that emphasizes (and balances) all four of these values?  Clarifying and instituting such a balanced set of guidelines could then inform day-to-day reporting practices, resulting in a more robust safeguarding of the news organization’s perceived worth, both externally and internally.  (Of course, there remains the problem of clarifying what humility (or any other virtue) in reporting and editorial oversight actually looks like in practice.  Is such a virtue-based goal realistic?)  

What do you think?  Are there other moral values (virtues) or principles that are relevant to answering Discussion Qs 1-3?  I’ve emphasized here a kind of Virtue Ethics approach, but maybe there’s a Deontological or Consequentialist view of the the moral tensions raised by Case #11.  Maybe it’s convincing to emphasize the rights due to the reporters here (although I tend to agree with Prof. Deaton about why rights-based appeals can be problematic).  Maybe there’s an ideal balancing of interests of the parties involved that would somehow maximize happiness, perceived welfare or preference satisfaction.  Good luck in your investigations!

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study:
  1. (Resource) “Current Topics: An Undergraduate Research Guide : Fake News. @ Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries.  ”This research guide provides information on recognizing fake news articles and websites, fact-checking, and researching fake news.”  EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a superb resource!  Bookmark it on your home + Chrome browser, and make sure that you study the definitions of “bias” (both “explicit bias” and “implicit bias”).
  1. (Video)  “Should Journalism Be Objective? Serial: Part 2.” @ Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios. Jan 28, 2015. “Welcome to PART DEUX of our discussion of “Serial”, the insanely popular podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig.  Last week we discussed objectivity in the law, and this week we’re turning our attention to objectivity in journalism.  Journalists have been tasked with objective reporting for decades, but is that a realistic goal?  Can any journalist be TRUELY objective?” [12:18]  NOTE: The theme of transparency vs. objectivity in journalism is briefly outlined in this related lecture excerpt: “Jorge Ramos on Objectivity & Neutrality in Reporting.” [1:59]
  1. (Article)  “Why journalism is shifting away from ‘objectivity’.” @ The Christian Science Monitor. July 6, 2017. By Harry Bruinius. “Amid the unusual pressures of the Trump era, some are advocating a more interpretive or even combative approach to journalism – and argue that it will do more to help society.” 
  1. (Video)  “Unprecedented attacks and distrust for the media? History says no..” @ The Christian Science Monitor. June 23, 2017. “The president’s attacks on the media and the public’s mistrust for it are nothing new. Decades-long trends have set the stage for them.” [8:34]
  1. (Video) “Objectivity and Truth in Journalism: Is It Possible?” @ FORA.tv (Dec 24, 2012). “Scott Lettieri, news reporter for KGO radio, speculates whether an objective truth exists in journalism. Acknowledging that journalists strive for complete and absolute truth, Lettieri declares that citizens should synthesize all avenues of media and news to find it.” [3:37] POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING: The journalist interviewed here briefly (and non-graphically) recounts a story of a woman who was kidnapped, raped, and had become a victim of sex trafficking.  Some students might find this brief account disturbing. 
  1. (Video) “Objective vs Subjective (Philosophical Distinction)” @ Carneades.org (7-10-16) “An explanation of the difference between objective and subjective, and definitions of each of these terms.  How can you tell if something is objective or subjective?  If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” [5:31] EDITOR’S NOTE: Like many ethical topics, the moral dimension of this case intersects with other areas of philosophy—here, the epistemology and metaphysics related to knowing and discerning whether the ideal of journalistic objectivity is something properly categorized as subjective or objective.  Without going down a rabbit hole too far, you should know that these sidebar topics will come up in the dispute about whether a news organization can trust a reporter (a subject), plus the editorial oversight process, to reliably maintain sufficient psychological distance from the topic reported on (presumably about which the reporter has some kind of personal investment).  Are reporters reliably capable of the mental discipline needed to meet objectivity standards, and thereby ensure credibility of the news organization with the public?  What kind of objectivity are we talking about?  (Surely, journalism isn’t a science, where the objects of study remain consistent enough in time and space to render “objective” findings.)  Is the ideal of objectivity in journalism even attainable for human reporters?  (I.e., cue the pessimist’s view that “It’s ALL subjective; objectivity doesn’t exist!” )   …I think you get the picture.  I recommend a practical lens when considering these questions.  A pure objectivity for the human sciences or for professions like journalism may not be possible; nevertheless, the aim of objectivity might be practically necessary to differentiate quality from shoddy journalistic practice.
  1. (Video)  “Real News vs. Fake News.” @ Univ of Louisville Research Assistance & Instruction. Jun 19, 2020. “Citizen Literacy is an online toolkit that promotes the development of key information skills for democratic citizenship and features short videos, handouts, and activities that faculty across all disciplines can integrate into their courses and assignments.” 
  1. (Video) “How to Spot Fake News – FactCheck.org” @ FactCheck. “Fake news is nothing new. But bogus stories can reach more people more quickly via social media than what good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past.” [3:22] 
  1. (Article) “How Implicit Bias Works in Journalism” @ Nieman Reports. By Issac J. Bailey, Nov. 13, 2018. “Avoiding the pitfalls of hidden biases can lead to better story selection and more inclusive reporting. …A commitment to addressing implicit bias—an automatic or unconscious tendency to associate particular characteristics with particular groups—in news coverage could improve and transform audience engagement, increase trust, and lead to more accurate coverage depicting our increasingly diverse world.”
  1. (Article + Video) “The Unbiased Media: Are Journalistic Ethics Overriding Human Ethics? |  How to Survive in a World Accustomed to Fear” @ Big Think. (9-1-16) “Recent research in psychology reveals insights into how the stories we are exposed to affect our identities and ideas. What implications does this hold for the influence of the news and the ethics of journalism?” [7:57]
  1. (Resource) “Media Bias Ratings” @ AllSides Media. “Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ make media bias transparent, helping you to easily identify different perspectives so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.”
  1. (Video) “Political media’s bias, in a single chart” @ Newsy.  (Dec 28, 2018) “Vanessa Otero set out to rank an ever-growing partisan media landscape, with the belief that an informed public is a better public.”  [4:26]
  1. (Video) “Confirmation Bias | Ethics Defined” @ McCombs School of Business. (Jan 28, 2021) “Confirmation bias is the tendency of people’s minds to seek out information that supports the views they already hold. It also leads people to interpret evidence in ways that support their pre-existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses.” [2:20]
  1. (Resource + Video) “What Is Bias? | Why Do Our Brains Love Fake News? | The Backfire Effect” @  Flathead Valley Community College – LibGuides – Evaluating Sources – Dealing with Bias. 
  1. (Article) “The lost meaning of ‘objectivity’.” @ American Press Institute “This guide, like many of the others in API’s Journalism Essentials section, is largely based on the research and teachings of the Committee of Concerned Journalists — a consortium of reporters, editors, producers, publishers, owners and academics that for 10 years facilitated a discussion among thousands of journalists about what they did, how they did it, and why it was important. The author, Walter Dean, was CCJ training director and API Executive Director Tom Rosenstiel formerly co-chaired the committee.”

Related Ethics Bowl Cases:

  1. 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?” 

2. 2016-17 National HSEB Case #14. Responsibility for implicit bias: “Should we blame people for having or acting on implicit biases, and if so how much?  How should the fact that implicit biases are so widespread influence what we think about them?”

3. 2016-17 National HSE201B Case #7. Teaching all sides: “Should a high school teacher in a class that studies many controversial subjects teach all sides of every issue or favor some sides over others?  Should she use her own judgement, teach all sides of public opinion, or defer to experts and scientists?  What questions can she treat as open and what questions should she teach as closed?” 

Posted on

Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting – NHSEB 2021-2022 Regionals Case 3 Guest Analysis

The following guest analysis is by Michael Andersen, longtime ethics bowl supporter, Ethics Club Adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics, Vancouver, WA, and regular EthicsBowl.org contributor. Thank you once again, Michael, for your superb analysis! This is actually from a PDF Michael created for his team, and is an excellent example of engaging a team before a coaching session, and leaving them with ample resources for further reflection. And sharing it publicly during the season is also a wonderful example of putting collaboration before competition. The spirit of the ethics bowl is strong with this one!

Good morning, philosophers. I hope that you had a restful Thanksgiving Break. Our case for discussion this week will be Case #3. “Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting” — a fictional one (but based in a realistic scenario) involving the ethics of ghosting via dating apps, as well as the gender norms and dynamics that sometimes affect the way individuals approach online dating.  I’ve uploaded the case session PDF below, and please read the case and the Discussion Qs therein.  Also, this week I’ve started a mini-section in the PDF called “Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case” in which I try to help you think about the central moral dimension involved–the answer to the questions What is the moral question?  What makes this an ethical issue?  You might also find useful the two (optional) PSU Ethics Bowl videos “Care Ethics for Ethics Bowl” and “Virtue Ethics for Ethics Bowl,” both of which present moral frameworks that seem relevant to this case.  Check them out if you have time.

BONUS: Some of you might want to see another example of an Ethics Bowl round.  If so, I’ve linked below the Championship Match of the 2021 National High School Ethics Bowl, between Kent Place High School (NJ) and University High School (CA).  The first half of the round discusses case #8 “Killer Art” (see National Case set link below), and the Moderator’s Q appears on screen @ min. 4:21.  The second half (beginning @ min. 43:05) discusses case #10 “Do You See What I See?”, and the Moderator’s Q appears on screen @ min. 43:31.

Today’s Discussion Topic 

⦾  Are there times it’s permissible to ghost?  Or is it permissible for some people to ghost, even if it’s not okay for others to do the same?

⦾  How do gender norms and dynamics affect the way that individuals should approach dating? 

⦾  Do the same rules apply to everyone?  Or is it permissible for some people to behave in certain ways while it would be impermissible for others to do the same?

Pre-Discussion Resources
  • (Video) “What Psychologists Can Tell You About Ghosting” @ SciShow Psych  (6-24-19). “Ghosting is when someone terminates a relationship by ending communications abruptly and without explanation.  Whether or not you’d consider ghosting someone might have a lot to do with how you view relationships in general.” [11:08] 

NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #3. Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case

What is the moral question?  What makes this an ethical issue? 

Consider respect and dignity as two common moral intuitions at play in a dating encounter (whether it’s the initial or a follow up encounter), but these often conflict with a moral principle of autonomy—i.e., the right or condition of self-government.  In the modern world (at least in many cultures), we reserve the right to decide for ourselves who we will date, for how long, and under what circumstances.  What respect and dignity obligations do we owe to people in a dating situation?  Shouldn’t there be some limits to our exercising of our personal autonomy in dating situations?  In a face-to-face encounter, assuming we desire to end the option to date, and also assuming that one’s immediate safety isn’t at stake, most people would probably assume a minimum standard of basic decency is necessary.  That is, unless the person under consideration is behaving abusively or in a rude manner, that person deserves a basic standard of respect and dignity in the way we turn down their offer(s) to date.  

We’re all human, after all, and maintaining a climate of respect and dignity for all ensures more healthy social relations for everyone.  In the context of a prospective date, simply dismissing or ignoring a person in a face-to-face encounter might be tolerated in some social circles, but it’s hardly admirable, as it results in people feeling disrespected and their dignity as a person violated.  If only for the practical reason that others might treat us disrespectfully, many see a basic standard of respect and dignity as a reciprocal duty we owe to each other to make society work, and to make dating even possible.  (If everyone ghosted prospective dates regularly, then no one would take the risk to date.)  In the case description, Imani reflects that “She’s been ghosted before and it sucks.  It usually leaves her wondering if she did anything wrong or if she’s an interesting person to talk to.”  

Immanuel Kant convincingly argued that “…all and only persons (i.e., rational autonomous agents) and the moral law they autonomously legislate are appropriate objects of the morally most significant attitude of respect.  Although honor, esteem, and prudential regard played important roles in moral and political theories before him, Kant … put respect for persons, including oneself as a person, at the very center of moral theory, and his insistence that persons are ends in themselves with an absolute dignity who must always be respected has become a core ideal of [modern morality].” (“Respect” @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)

If the technology of dating apps makes it convenient for us to get into the habit of ghosting other people whenever the whim strikes us, then what kind of people are we likely to become?  What kind of dating culture is likely to evolve where this becomes the norm?  Maybe Imani in the passage quoted above is hinting not just at respect and dignity due to other persons but also a kind of self-respect, since whether or not she ghosts the men she might be interested in implies that getting into the habit of doing so reflects on her self image.  Perhaps, she thinks, “I don’t want to be the kind of person who dismisses people this way” or “Will I respect myself if I’m habitually leaving prospective dates in the dark about my intentions, even if it’s convenient in the moment?”

Context, of course, matters a lot here.  For Imani, while some online chat on the dating app has involved men who are “…demeaning or make inappropriate jokes, [and] some send unsolicited explicit pictures, [while] some just talk about themselves and don’t think to ask her any questions; …on the other hand, there’s three people she can think of who seemed really kind and thoughtful, and she can see herself interested in people like them in the future.”  If these latter people—who likely will have feelings of rejection or uncertainty similar to Imani’s—are ghosted by her just like the men who behave rudely or selfishly, then in effect it’s her need for convenience that reduces all of the prospective dates to candidates for ghosting (as Jake suggests).  Why should the convenient means (the technology) justify these harmful ends (a dismissal of basic respect and dignity due to the real person on the receiving end)?

Perhaps you might think that, for practical reasons, the sheer scale of options available to users of a dating app doesn’t realistically allow for one to engage with others as we would face-to-face.  That’s the benefit of the app’s architecture, no?  It’s like a digital version of a speed dating session with built-in match-making filtering, without the hassles of face-to-face pleasantries; and it facilitates remote communication without having to struggle through the energy-draining, risky exchanges that a face-to-face breakup would entail.  These features enhance our autonomy and make it more likely that users’ preferences are matched and met (thereby making loneliness less likely and potential happiness in relationships more possible). 

…But is that really what happens?  This might not be the first (or last) technology whose initial promises for increased well-being turn out to be hollow in many cases.  Perhaps dating apps, because of the way their architecture is designed, in the long run actually promote selfishness and/or rude treatment of others (much like the anonymity of other online platforms ends up making trollish behavior more common).  If the moral value of autonomy is to rank highly in our moral deliberations, the quality of self-governance involved should matter, not just the assertion of one’s entitlement to it.  If we govern ourselves poorly, selfishly, without regard for the dignity or respect of others, then our self-governance won’t matter much to others.  This means that respect for the autonomy of others (and ourselves) depends on a mutually-reinforcing network of persons continuing to treat each other with dignity and respect. If any technology platform erodes our ability to offer this to each other, then shouldn’t we turn a skeptical eye to the harmful norms propagated by that platform?  (Put simply, if dating apps make it easy to ghost other people, then it’s likely that users of those apps will make ghosting a habit—which, ironically, will make dating harder for everyone.)

What do you think?  Are there other values (or virtues) relevant to this case, besides autonomy, respect and dignity?  Are there principles like the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) that ought to govern our dating interactions, even online?  Naming these relevant moral values or principles—especially if they’re in conflict or tension—will help your team correctly identify what is the moral question of case #3, as well as to respond to questions about what the central (most important) moral dimension of the case is.  Once you name them, cited by evidence from the case description, discuss which values or principles deserve priority in answering the case’s Discussion Questions. 

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study
  1. (Video) “PHILOSOPHY – The Good Life: Kant ” @ Wireless Philosophy. “In this Wireless Philosophy video, Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Immanuel Kant in the his moral, political, and religious writings. He explains why Kant believes that the highest good for a human being is the conjunction of happiness and complete virtue and how it is possible for an individual to attain these two things at the same time.” [5:53] 
  1. (Article)  “Why I ghosted my best friend | My behaviour haunts me to this day.” @ BBC 3. By Anonymous. 22 October 2018.  EDITOR’S NOTE: While this article involves online ghosting of a friendship and not dating, the subjects involved experience related ethical complications as with case #3 (e.g., the way technology mediates their exchanges, likely with a sense of alienating remoteness and the lack of emotional cues or accountability that would come through face-to-face interaction).  The way that dating apps allow for an experience of convenient sorting and editing one’s communication with potential dates, as well as shields of anonymity and cultivated profiles, mirrors—in some respects at least—the manner in which friendships can be mediated in novel ways with online communication tools (in this case texting).  It’s worth exploring how these technologies are conflicting with, perhaps even reshaping, our deep social instincts about emotional responsibility (and thereby our ethical codes) in intimate relationships.  Is this author’s ghosting of her (former) friend comparable to Imani or Jake’s choices to ghost potential dates?  If so, how are the situations similar?  Which moral intuitions are at play in either context—online dating or online navigation of friendships? 
  1. (Article) “I’m a serial ‘ghoster’ in dating — here’s why I do it. @ Business Insider.  By James Lindsay, Jun 4, 2018. EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe I’m old fashioned, but this article offers a testimony about ghosting in online dating that I—personally—find problematic, yet the author does articulate how online dating can transform our sense of personal responsibility, normalizing (rationalizing?) ghosting behaviors that wouldn’t be acceptable in person. Sample: “Within the confines of a common social group, dating, no matter how casual, always required a certain decorum. If you didn’t want to keep seeing someone, you had to say so, because you were definitely going to see that person again. Online dating has no such confines.“
  1. (Article) “Dating dilemma: is ghosting ever okay” @ THIS | Deakin Univ. Dr Petra Brown, Teaching Scholar, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University.  Retrieved 11/29/21.
  1. (Article) “The Ethics of ‘Ghosting’” @ Ethics Sage.  By Dr. Steven Mintz, PhD, is a professor emeritus from Cal Poly State University in San Luis Obispo.  09/04/2018.  
  1. (Article) “Pulling the sheet back on ‘ghosting’” @ ASU Now. “ASU Now consulted Maura Priest, an associate professor and bioethicist in the School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies and the author of the forthcoming book, The Ethics of Dating, to explain the how and the why of this phenomenon.”  09/20/2019.
  1. (Article) “In Defense of Ghosting” @ Medium. By Reese Weatherl, Dec 25, 2020.
  1. (Scholarly Article) “ Psychological Correlates of Ghosting and Breadcrumbing Experiences: A Preliminary Study among Adults” @  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. By Navarro R, Larrañaga E, Yubero S, Víllora B… 2020; 17(3):1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17031116.
Related Ethics Bowl Cases

2017-18 National HSE201B Case #16. Haunted by Tinder: “What values are at play when determining how we should interact with people we meet through online dating platforms?  When, if ever, is ghosting someone on social media ever acceptable?”” 

2018-19 National HSEB Case #15. It’s Just a Preference: “Jason was recently encouraged by his friends to try online dating. After a few days of no hits, he finally matches with someone only for them to send a message saying, “Sorry, accidentally swiped right. Not into Asians”. While racial preferences seem to be common in online dating many claim that these trends in dating preferences are racist. Others argue that desire is deeply rooted and one shouldn’t feel obligated to go against it.  To what extent are racial preferences in dating an individual character flaw?  A broader social problem?  Neither?  Both?

Posted on

Why Rights are Wrong

Recall from Ethics in a Nutshell chapter 4 (review it on the Resources page here) differences between morality and legality. Good law tracks morality, but doesn’t establish or guarantee it. Just consider laws legalizing slavery or outlawing educating women. Surely it was immoral to enslave humans even when it was legal in the past. Surely it’s moral to educate women even where it’s illegal today.

Even meta-laws, such as a country’s constitution, aren’t a strong foundation for a moral argument. Your position is supported by the US Constitution? That’s cool. Did you know that document implicitly endorses slavery in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3? Legal rights claims are tempting, and common, and would be very appropriate in a courtroom. But in an ethics bowl (or ethics paper), they signal that your analysis didn’t go very deep.

Human rights, which some claim exist prior to and even in the absence of a legal framework, are a little better. But not much. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains a collection of admirable, aspirational protections. But they’re all prone the same error. Check out the UDHR’s supposed inalienable human right to “periodic holidays with pay” (Article 24). A pre-legal, universal human right to paid holidays? Really? A case can be made that a life without leisure isn’t very fun. But a case can also be made that this doesn’t rise to the level of an inalienable protection naturally enjoyed by all humans, especially the “paid” part.

In addition to being fallible human artifacts, notice how even the language of rights impedes discussion. Rights suggest an all-or-nothing, on/off, absolute nature precluding balance and care, which does more harm than good when trying to think through a tough issue.

For example, if I claim a right to bear arms and you claim a right to public safety, and you think this supposed “right” to public safety is incompatible with private citizens owning arms, we’re at an impasse. The same is true when discussing abortion. If one person asserts a right to life and another a right to control their body, we’re (unnecessarily) stuck.

Invoking rights pretends an issue is fully settled and clear in light of some dominant ethical claim, and that one consideration (the asserted, favored right) dwarfs all others, when that’s simply not the case. Smart human rights theorists usually tie their claims to some fundamental human interest, which helps. But why not avoid the problematic language of rights altogether? It’s too coarse, too oversimplified, and not nearly nuanced enough for careful ethical analysis, including ethics bowl case analysis.

And if your gut’s telling you there’s some strong interest or overriding reason in play, explore the “why” behind it. Rather than ignoring rights claims, use them as clues. It’s far better to unpack the supporting reasons (if any can be found), examine and craft them into a transparent argument, than to invoke the lazy shorthand of rights.

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

Critical Thinking and Ethics

I’d like to thank Matt Deaton for introducing me to Ethics Bowl at this year’s American Philosophical Association (APA) Eastern Division conference. 

Given my own mission to help students (of any age) develop their critical-thinking skills (through books like Critical Thinking from MIT Press and my LogicCheck site that uses the news of the day to teach critical-thinking techniques) I’m drawn to situations where facts alone cannot provide answers on what to do.

In situations when we have to decide what to do in the future, we can’t fact-check things that haven’t happened yet, but we can argue over which choice to make. We can also never know with certainty what is going on inside other people’s heads, which requires us to argue over motives and motivations, rather than claim to know them without doubt.  

Similarly, only the most trivial ethical dilemmas can be resolved by appealing to facts of the matter.  For the kind of complex dilemmas we face in the real world, such as those students grapple with when they participate in Ethics Bowl, we need to argue things out.  And arguing well is what you learn by studying critical thinking.

With that in mind, I was inspired to start a series over at LogicCheck that applies different critical-thinking principles to specific cases in this year’s Ethics Bowl national case set.  The first looks at how the ability to peer through persuasive language (commonly referred to as rhetoric) to see through wording that might pre-suppose an answer to a problem.  A second piece shows how hidden premises, statements implied but not stated in arguments, often contain the most important points we are need to discuss. 

I hope to continue this series by looking at other cases in light of the critical-thinker’s toolkit that involves skills such as controlling for bias and media and information literacy.  In each of these postings, I will endeavor to introduce students to productive ways of thinking about ethical issues and avoid telling them what to think about them.

So thanks again to Matt for letting me post here at his Ethics Bowl site.  Thanks as well to everyone involved with this fantastic program, and to all the students and teachers participating in it.

Happy deliberating!

~Jonathan Haber~

Posted on

The Korean Pop Industrial Complex – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 7

Matt could identify the “I Got It From My Daddy” guy in sunglasses, but that’s it. Which is why Arsheen was a much better fit for this case. Thanks for guest authoring, Arsheen! Image credit to PostKulture.

It’s no secret that K-pop idols are overworked. They’re pressured to constantly improve their talent and image, and to create a never-ending flow of new music and dances. As a K-pop fan of 4 years, I believe listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the current industry trajectory and demand a more ethical working environment.

Many fans already do this without even thinking. Min Yoongi, better known as Suga, is the main rapper in the world-famous K-pop group BTS. He recently had his shoulder labrum torn and had to undergo surgery. His fans know that he is in pain and needs time to heal. Therefore, most have been patient and caring for his health and recovery. Fans know that Min Yoongi’s injury may affect BTS’s new album release planned for November 20, but they are ok with it. This is just one example of fans wanting better for their idols.

Many fans have tried to get their voices heard about idols being overworked. Another example is Park Jimin, more commonly known as Jimin from BTS. About three years ago, Park Jimin was overworking himself so much that he needed medical attention. He was not eating enough and was working too much. Many fans were upset with BigHIt, BTS’s label, as they did not do anything to help. Instead, they pushed him to almost work himself to death. 

The K-pop industry is very competitive. Many, if not all of the idols, start their training at 13 or 14. The teenage years are when individuals don’t make the best decisions. Because of this fact, I believe it does matter if the terms of the contract are exploitative, taking unfair advantage of youth hungry for fame. 

I believe that the entertainment industry is inherently exploitative. For example, many K-pop industries do not allow their idols to date. This is because “taken” idols can lower the industry’s revenue compared idols who are single. Dating can lower revenue because every fan has that longing feeling that the idol may end up dating them. If they find out that their idol is already dating someone, they may lose interest.

Another reason why the entertainment industry is inherently exploitative is that idols are forced to undergo plastic surgery to make themselves look perfect. Those who don’t simply can’t compete. And the extreme pressure K-pop stars are under, combined their usually young age, makes any choice they make less than ideally voluntary.

For these reasons, I believe the K-pop industry needs substantial reform. Rising stars will have little power to fight back. And since the culture is driven by money, changes will likely have to be demanded by fans. Therefore, the greatest responsibility to reform the K-pop industry falls on existing stars and K-pop fans like myself. We can still enjoy the music. But we should use our purchasing power to reward labels who decrease these harms, and punish labels who perpetuate them.

Posted on

Introducing NHSEBAcademy

Our friends at the Parr Center have been busy, recently launching the brand new all-online NHSEBAcademy. The best part? Live, Zoom-based bowling clinics. The first two are scheduled for later this week (register here). Depending on how interactive they are, this could be a game-changer. But wait, there’s more!

I believe that’s our friend Kyle Robertson at UC Santa Cruz featured on the organizer kit image. Looking good, Kyle!

The Library contains zip files packed with material tailored for teams, coaches, judges and organizers. You can download the current NHSEB rules and guidelines, case pool, score sheet and rubric (coaches and teams – don’t overlook those scoring criteria!), and even moderator scripts. Resources planned for future release include a guide to coaching a bowl during COVID (tip: buy a webcam), a manual for organizers interested in growing their bowl (I have an older version from my time as the original NHSEB Director of Outreach – email if you can’t wait for the new one), and “Ethics Bowl in Class: Resources for the Classroom and Beyond.”

The Theater includes an “Ethical Reasoning Toolkit” playlist beginning with a vid by Yale’s Kelley Schiffman. Prof Schiffman deftly distinguishes between descriptive and normative claims, and is followed by an exploration of the nature and moral implications of consent. While the consent vid uses the language of rights far too much (rights claims are too clunky for quality ethics bowl work), it’s redeemed by a cookie-eating illustration. Cookies cure all, and since we’re bashing rights claims, I hereby proclaim a universal human right to Toll House chocolate chip lovers cookies.

The second playlist, “Arguing About Morality,” begins with a vid similar to the descriptive vs. normative distinction from the first list, only this time delivered by John Corvino and focusing on facts vs. opinions. Corvino next overviews how arguments by analogy work, and how to analyze them. Arguments by analogy are common and persuasive – a team’s entire bowling strategy could be built on them (a possible strategy for my own team…).

The library and theater are certain to benefit teams, coaches, judges and volunteers. But the most welcome, innovative and value-adding feature is NHSEBAcademy Live.  

NHSEBAcademy Live is a new series of specially-designed online events for NHSEB students, coaches, organizers, and volunteers. These programs will provide new ways to engage with Ethics Bowl content, mechanics, and skills. Our full schedule of events is below, and more will be added throughout the Fall and Winter in the lead up to NHSEB Regional Season.

NHSEBAcademy.org/live

First up is a new ethics bowl clinic scheduled for Thursday, Oct 22nd from 3-4:30 EST and Saturday, Oct 24th from 4:30-6 EST (the second will be a repeat of the first). The workshops promise to cover “presentation techniques, responsive commentaries, practice Q+A sessions, and more.” Registration is required and will enable access to the Zoom link. If you check it out, let us know how it went. We may digitally bump into one another at the Saturday session.

Thanks, UNC, for this innovation. Looking forward to all the Academy has to offer. Readers can check it out via the menu at NHSEB.unc.edu or by clicking here.

Posted on

The BLT – Babe, Lettuce and Tomato

This guest post was generously written by Australian Ethics Olympiad Coach, Andrew Costantino. Andrew teaches Philosophy and Religious Education at Santa Sabina College, and was struck by a case written by Professor Tom Wartenburg at Holyoke College in Massachusetts concerning the ethics of consuming meat.

Fancy a BLT?

In the 2019 Australian Middle Years Ethics Olympiad students were asked to consider a scene from the 1995 movie Babe. In this scene an anthropomorphised piglet is seen having a chat with a family of sheep dogs. The dogs, with an air of entitlement that stemmed from their privileged relationship to the farmer and superior intelligence, reassured the piglet that she would not be eaten as ‘the farmer only eats stupid animals’. The dogs then go on to name the piglet, Babe. 

This is a disturbing scene, it would seem that it is an accepted norm that the smart eat while the dumb inevitably get eaten. One must ask, is the moral justification of our diet dependent on intelligence? Are there any other moral considerations?

This reasoning, if consistently applied, could be a ‘recipe’ for disaster. It may mean that the nightly news could replace Master Chef and an evening on social media could become a virtual buffet. On a more serious note, if we cannot accept that intelligence is a morally relevant distinguisher when determining what we ought to eat, are we ethically bound to adopt vegetarianism?

The appeal to empathy

One way in which some argue for vegetarianism or veganism is through an appeal to empathy. You may be familiar with vegan activist and animal rights campaigner Joey Carbstrong. He attempts to use moral reasoning and emotive imagery to convince people that the only truly ethical choice is to live a vegan lifestyle and he makes many well formulated points. In a recent post he uploaded a clip where he visited what was termed the world’s ‘most transparent slaughterhouse’. Part way through the interview he stated that he liked to ‘put himself in the animal’s position…’ and he knew that if he were the animal, he would prefer life to death. He also appeals to the value of the individual animal ‘in there’. Movies that anthropomorphise animals, like Babe, do the same thing, they imagine that the animal is ‘just like us’. The Babe ‘in there’ is ‘just like’ the Andrew ‘in here’. We are hardwired to be aware of other minds and thus to infer subjective experience onto other creatures. The problem is that we infer that this subjective experience is akin to our own.

I find this particular approach at least partially problematic. The problem is that when we put ourselves in the position of the animal or we engage with a film about a fictional talking pig we subsequently presume that pigs talk, that they have an inner dialogue, and thus have a self-reflexive identity. These activities imply a certain level of higher order self-concept, they imply an ability to depict things symbolically, to conceive of oneself as a temporal creature. It implies that the animal can articulate its desires, have long term goals and create traditions. It implies some critical faculty of abstract reasoning. A considerable amount of the moral value that we attribute to people stems from these distinctly human capabilities. Even when people may not have these capabilities we seem to value them, at least partially, because we know that these abilities are emerging or in regular circumstances should be there. When we tragically lose these capabilities through injury, disability, age or accident we often see this as a significant loss, the person is diminished. We can say that those suffering these misfortunes are ‘no longer themselves’, they are ‘vegetables’ or ‘no one is home’. Some go as far as to say these kinds of significant losses equate to a life that is not worth living. 

I would argue that our value and membership in the moral community is at least partly tied up in this unique form of self concept and self expression. Daniel Dennett once said that if a lion could talk it could not tell us anything about what it’s like to be a lion, not because we couldn’t understand it but because once it started to talk it would not know what it was to be a lion. The human experience and human conception of identity is unique. Anthropomorphising all sentient creatures to an equal extent and seeing ourselves in the eyes of the other can be problematic and it can lead us to overstate and over simplify our case.

This does not mean that the subjective experience and suffering of sentient creatures is morally irrelevant. However, if we are to avoid rash generalisations we cannot conflate disparate things into a single category for the sake of convenience. One philosopher who is acutely aware of this is Martha Nussbaum. When considering animals in her broader theory of justice she argues that animal capability and flourishing must be considered in a way that is proportionate to their dignity, it ‘…regards each animal having a dignity all its own’. The protection of animal capabilities must be commensurate with the kind of things that that animal can ‘do’ and the kind of thing that it can ‘be’. The ‘doings’ and ‘beings’ of particular animals are distinct. In this view, one can adopt a situational ethic that develops rules appropriate to the nature of the animal in question and the situation in which the rule is being made while ensuring that at least a minimum amount of dignity can be safeguarded. In short, Babe doesn’t need a name and voice in order to be worthy of some level of moral consideration, however the ability to feel pain doesn’t automatically grant Babe moral equivalence. Furthermore, it would be equally naive if one did not recognise cognitive ability and self concept as contributing features in a suite of morally relevant considerations.

The problems of ideology

In relation to the question of vegetarianism, ideology can reign supreme on both sides of the debate. 

Those who indiscriminately defend the consumption of animal products often defer to tradition in one form or another. In a recent discussion with students I (playing the devil’s advocate) suggested that we should eat koalas. They were appalled – “but it’s a koala!” they exclaimed. Here are some facts: koalas have disproportionately small brains, low levels of adaptability, they sleep most of the day, they live mostly solitary lives and have minimal perceived benefits to the ecosystems that they are a part of.  It seems that killing a koala for food could possibly be a morally neutral, if not justifiable, action… and yet it just feels wrong. At this point one student will interject and say ‘Aww… but they’re cute!’ I quickly respond, ‘Surely cuteness is not morally relevant and even if it were, we eat lambs, calves and piglets all of the time. Do you not find them cute?’ 

There is an awkward silence. 

Problematic ideological reasoning can similarly infiltrate those who maintain an ideological commitment to vegetarianism. People become vegetarians for a multitude of reasons. The reasons include the intuitive wrongness of killing, the concerns for ecological sustainability and preventing the needless suffering of sentient creatures. Most vegetarians justify their positions with reference to one or more of these greater effects or principles. 

Let’s consider a short case study: Peter is a strict vegetarian. Peter is at a restaurant, he orders the mushroom burger, what he doesn’t realise is that the mushroom is fried in a sauce that contains anchovies. Upon finding out this fact he calls the waiter, the waiter swiftly disposes of the burger. Peter orders the halloumi salad instead. Peter is satisfied. 

In this case Peter has wasted food for no net gain. The suffering and killing that occurred has still occurred and no one has benefited. Furthermore, the second meal has added to the ecological impact of his dining experience, food has been wasted and more food has been produced. Finally, replacing halloumi for anchovies may also be more generally problematic. Anchovies are small fish with relatively low cognitive ability, high reproductive capacity, short life spans and they are often consumed in short timeframes in their natural settings. Dairy on the other hand, involves proportionately higher levels of cruelty. Dairy cows have a significantly higher cognitive capacity and are kept perpetually pregnant or lactating, they have their calves routinely stripped from them, their male calves supply the veal industry and their female calves share the fate of their mothers. When they are no longer useful they are slaughtered. In this case ideological commitment to vegetarianism leads to a response that is contrary to all the morally relevant reasons as to why one may be a vegetarian in the first place. 

It would seem that deference to tradition either through affiliation to a particular ideological group or the enculturated values of one’s own society inhibit one’s capacity to make ethically defensible choices.

Back to the BLT

Sometimes we have a tendency to habitually exclude animals from the things that we see as morally relevant. Once we stop and consider that animals too have inner lives, we may be led to see reflections of ourselves in them. We may very well share some common experiences, however the homosapien is a very distinct species and the human experience is a unique one. Animals are not mindless machines and they are not fully functional, responsible human beings – their place in our moral community is nuanced and complex.

Personally, I think that it is unjustifiable for a person of sufficient means and education to indiscriminately dismiss the preferences and experience of sentient creatures. Equally, I do not think that all creatures, or their experiences, are equal. Ideological commitment to particular rules inevitably sets the bar at an unrealistic height and can ultimately lead to the perfect getting in the way of the good. Furthermore, such rules can actually be, in themselves, inhibiting when attempting to reach more ideal standards in general terms. Avoiding deontological rules in favour of nuanced and situational analysis is hard and is riddled with problems of incommensurate goods and unforeseen consequences. Considering each meal, each moment can be exhausting. 

Despite this, we can aim to develop a disposition that is considered, conscious of the proportional dignity and capabilities of sentient creatures and compassionate toward the pain of others. Such an ambition may enable us to imperfectly walk the line between apathy and dogmatism in a way that perfectly captures the complexities of the human condition.

Would I order the BLT?

Probably not, because such an action is seldom justifiable in my given context. Despite this, if you had already ordered it for me – perhaps while I was on my soapbox – I would eat it..

Andrew Costantino, Santa Sabina College, Sydney, Australia

Posted on

Australian Cookie Ethics

C is for cookie, that’s good enough for me

Santa Sabina College Philosophy and Religious Education Teacher Andrew Costantino recently delivered an excellent Ethics Olympiad (Australia’s Ethics Bowl) case analysis presentation. The primary case: Is It OK to Punch a Nazi? The primary metaphor: baking and eating cookies!

  • cookie ingredients (chocolate chips, an egg, brown sugar, etc.) = case presumptions and facts
  • the recipe (mix, bake at 350 degrees for 12 mins) = construction of the argument
  • the eating experience (bland, burnt or perfecto) = the argument’s consequences and implications

Could there be a more delicious way to explain argument construction and analysis? Brilliant!

Costantino also considers and explains subject-centered approaches to ethics, providing substantial analysis from the perspective of Virtue Ethics, action-centered approaches, including Deontological Ethics such as Kantianism, and consequence-based theories, including Utilitarianism.

He does a nice job dividing Kant’s Categorical Imperative into the Humanity Principle and Universality Principle – much better labels than The First and Second Formulations (which I’m guilty of using). And is careful to explain how Utilitarianism should take into account long-term consequences (as suggested by Rule Utilitarianism), and can morph into preference-satisfaction Utilitarianism, as promoted by world-famous Australian moral philosopher, Peter Singer.

Whether you’re a coach, competitor, judge or fan, the vid’s almost certainly worth your time. Thanks to Andrew for putting it together, and thanks to Matthew Wills with Ethics Olympiad for recording and sharing it with the EthicsBowl.org community.

Posted on

Show Your Work

Math teachers often require students to show their work. Even if your answer is correct, they want to see how you got it to confirm that you understand why.

Showing your work in Logic class looks like this… (Logic is only slightly more fun than this suggests)

Showing your work is even more important with theoretical mathematics where the correct answer is unknown. (I imagine problems involving infinity and that “i” symbol I vaguely remember from Calculus…) The transparency enables mathematicians to progress through unknown territory together. Were one to exclaim, “Eureka, X = -12.4!” the rest would rightly reply, “Great. But please explain why. Please show your work.”

Philosophy is similar to theoretical mathematics in this way. The correct answer is often unknown or disputed. Philosophers need to articulate their assumptions, logical moves, caveats and reasoning. That way others can consider their premises’ plausibility, the logical catalysts’ strength etc. – to judge whether the proposed conclusion truly makes sense. And if not, it helps them see how they might repair the reasoning chain to arrive at a better-defended position.

Part of making a good ethics bowl presentation entails explaining how your team arrived at its position. That way the other team and judges can fairly evaluate your view. It’s not enough to simply share your position. You need to thoroughly and clearly divulge the reasoning that got you there.

This exposure can feel intimidating. “What if we’ve made a mistake? They’ll know!” But it’s the only way to demonstrate that your position is worth others’ rational assent. Even if the judges agree with your conclusion (that prison labor is wrong or euthanizing healthy pets is OK or whatever), they need to understand how your team got there. They need to be able to verify the quality of your argument.

So show your work. Not only in math class, and not only in philosophy papers. But at all stages of ethics bowl – your initial presentation, your commentary on the other team’s argument, and during the judges Q&A.

And feel free to show your work in informal political and moral discussions as well. Don’t simply endorse candidate X – explain why you prefer candidate x over candidate y. If your reasons are truly good, maybe you’ll win additional support. If they’re not, finding out and changing your mind before it’s too late is a good thing. And maybe (just maybe) you’ll start a trend. Imagine that – a world in which people clearly explained their positions and modified them (rather than simply reasserting them, only louder) when proven wrong.