Category: Coaching

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?” 

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.