International Hub for all things Ethics Bowl
Happy New Year! While Rhode Island, Tyler, Texas (where I teach ethics online) and Virginia held their regional bowls in November or December, everyone else – from Washington D.C. to Washington state, California to the Carolinas – is still prepping for theirs.
So, for teams, coaches and dedicated judges, here are two additional study guides from all-star coach Michael Andersen. Enjoy!
There’s no shortage of morally questionable content on Netflix, and this season the esteemed NHSEB Case Committee decided to invite analysis of Dahmer, the streaming service’s second most-viewed show ever.
How to think it through? With Coach Michael Andersen’s study guide, of course, which happens to link to the below mental juice kickstarting TED talk on the ethics of true crime storytelling and consumption. Enjoy!
Another stellar case analysis study guide from Coach Michael Andersen in Washington.
Matt’s super quick, unsolicited take on the open-closed question distinction offered in the case: no question is “closed” for the true philosopher. We might quickly dismiss certain claims and arguments with good reason. But any idea sincerely expressed deserves consideration. Though my open-mindedness is tested when a friend sends me flat earth videos…
Anyway, the guide is fantastic per usual – thank you, Michael! The link to SchoolofThought.org‘s “Rules of Civil Conversation” alone make it worth every team’s review. In fact, let’s highlight those rather nice rules below… Why isn’t Ethics Bowl partnering with these hilariously (“let’s avoid the apocalypse”? – ha!) good folks? I’m an instant fan.
Could shielding a loved one from a terrible truth be admirable? I would thinks so. But much would depend on the stakes, the relationship, and reasonable assumptions about what our beloved would or wouldn’t want to know.
Could abusing entities that don’t really matter be indirectly wrong out of concern for entities that do matter? Kant thought so. While torturing a cat (which lacks the power of autonomy, and therefore substantial moral value) might not be directly wrong on Kantian grounds, it would probably make a person more callous generally, and therefore more likely to harm human beings.
Such are the core issues in cases 3 and 5. But don’t take my or Kant’s word for it. Think them through for yourself! And do it like a pro using Coach Michael Andersen’s expert study guides.
Courtesy of co-authors and Ethics Bowl Coaches Michael Andersen and Hassan Eltelbany, a superb guide to lead your team through regional case 14 followed by an equally superb analysis.
Be sure to check out the brief news story sharing the Nash family’s motives and how they’re doing now. And before reading the analysis, consider thinking through the guide with your team.
Super special thanks to Michael and Hassan for leading by example!
Our friend Michael Andersen in Washington is at it again, meticulously crafting and gifting invaluable resources to the global Ethics Bowl community. I’ve never thought of you as an elf before, Michael. But your care and generosity, and your location several degrees north of Tennessee, are bringing that comparison to mind!
Andersen’s Step-by-Step Guide, adapted from Dustin Webster’s Coaching Manual, leads ethletes from first impressions and relevant facts, into key stakeholders’ perspectives, the values and interests they’re likely to emphasize. While the guide asks teams to name the central moral tension, it’s careful to marinate in analysis mode. Visualizing parties adjacent on the page, it invites teams to adopt a character and talk things through.
It’s the perfect lead-in to Andersen’s Presentation Planner – a strategic blueprint of exactly what a team intends to argue and who’s responsible for what. Settling who’s answering the moderator’s question, who’s justifying the team’s position and who’s handling the recap on paper is sure to reduce confusion, promote quality prep and make a team both feel and perform better come Bowl day.
We’ll soon post some of Michael’s regional NHSEB case study guides, and may have an analysis of case 14, “A Phenotypic Prometheus?” Michael may or may not be co-authoring with Portland State Philosophy grad student, assistant coach and rising rock star educator Hassan Eltelbany… But first, we’re proud to share this thorough, concise and clear analysis how-to, as well as two examples of the humbly titled “Minimum Presentation Plan.” Thank you from all of us, Michael! Please say hello to Santa!
NHSEB Case 1 invites teams to think about the moral implications of creating sentient artificial life, and proposes a standard of cautious protectionism. It’s a cool topic on its own, but I’m noticing unexpected parallels with early human life that could inform an interesting all-things-considered view or inspire a nice judges’ Q&A question. And with NHSEBAcademy hosting a discussion with one of the case’s quoted philosophers this Thursday (click here to chat with Dr. Sebo live), now’s a great time to think harder about this case.
When A.I. neural networks will be sufficiently sophisticated to generate conscious awareness is unknown. We have enough trouble explaining normal consciousness. What would constitute clear evidence for artificial sentience is even more contested. It’s also unclear whether consciousness is a phenomenon replicable apart from organic material. Just as a genuine fire cannot be replicated in a computer simulation (no matter how fancy the algorithm, 1s and 0s modeling fire do not constitute actual fire), maybe consciousness operates similarly, forever precluding non-organic minds.
However, since we have a prima facie obligation to consider the interests of any entity capable of suffering, perhaps we should assume certain advanced A.I. is sentient to avoid facilitating great pain. Or so the NHSEB Case Committee suggests. They quote philosopher Jeff Sebo as arguing that “turning an A.I. off [and beforehand causing it to dread its death] can be wrong even if the risk of the A.I. being sentient is low… we should extend moral consideration to A.I.s not when A.I.s are definitely sentient or even probably sentient, but rather when they have a non-negligible chance of being sentient, given the evidence.” The writers go on to infer that the implicit moral principle “is that creating something with the capacity for sentience would also mean we created something that deserves moral consideration.” This seems noncontroversial enough. If there’s credible risk that Action A may harm a being capable of sentience, that’s at the very least reason to reconsider Action A.
Philosopher John McClellan once informally argued for similar caution on a completely different topic. Imagine that you’re hunting deer and hear a rustling sound in a bush. It might be a deer, but it might also be another hunter. Since killing a person would be a great moral wrong, we should of course await visual confirmation that it’s a deer before shooting. Well, McClellan argued that if we agree it would be immoral to shoot into a bush when there’s a reasonable risk that doing so might kill a person, we should apply similar logic to the status of Unborn Developing Humans when thinking about the morality of abortion. While some argue that UDHs are morally insignificant, others argue they possess great moral worth for a variety of reasons such as their unique capacity to develop into a full person and their possession of several features of personhood later in pregnancy, including conscious awareness. McClellan argued that so long as such reasons (or others) are sufficient to generate a non-negligible risk that UDHs are morally significant, abortion is extremely morally risky and thus only justifiable, if ever, in the most extreme circumstances (e.g., when the mother’s life is in danger).
How should Sebo’s standard that something with “the capacity for sentience… deserves moral consideration” apply to McClellan’s standard that when there’s a risk that we may destroy something with high moral value, we should err on the side of caution? How should our judgments about the treatment of potentially sentient A.I. inform and mesh with our judgments about the treatment of Unborn Developing Humans – entities that definitely possess the capacity for eventual sentience, and in the later stages of gestation, already are sentient? For one, maybe logical consistency demands that if we argue in favor of caution when it comes to possibly sentient A.I., we should adopt similar caution when dealing with Unborn Developing Humans.
Agree? Sense relevant differences that would justify treating one with more respect than the other? Either way, considering this angle should enrich a team’s overall understanding, and could also serve as a fantastic judge’s question. And if you think the case is cool and would like to discuss it with Dr. Sebo himself, be sure to take advantage of the town hall event happening this Thursday, December 15th at 7 EST. Attendance is free, but pre-registration is required. Click here for more info.
Regular EthicsBowl.org contributor Michael Andersen prepared the below Philosophy Club agenda / mini-curriculum for his Ethics Bowl team and generously agreed to share it with our readers. If you know a coach, please share! This is sure to elevate the thinking of any team that takes the time to explore the hyperlinked videos, articles and other resources. And this is definitely a case we want the Ethics Bowl community considering. Enjoy, and thanks as always, Michael!
The 2022-2023 Regional NHSEB Regional Case Set went live Friday afternoon. Two cases that immediately caught my attention were #1, on the implications of Artificial Intelligences becoming conscious (Philosophy of Mind, anyone?), and #13, on a couple’s disagreement over how much risk to their Unborn Developing Human is too much.
In a nutshell, the mother is OK possibly catching COVID at work and lifting heavy stuff at home, whereas the father wants her to telework when a coworker has tested positive and has volunteered to cover the strenuous household chores. The question becomes, just how much weight should the father’s input carry?
It’s not perfect. For one, the title, “Our Baby, My Body” is awfully close to “My Body, My Choice,” steering analysis toward a predetermined conclusion. “Dismissing a Father’s Love” would have been just as bad in the other direction. A more neutral (but boring) alternative: “Properly Balancing Parental Autonomy During Pregnancy.”
However, I’m just glad it’s included at all, and optimistic that Ethics Bowl coaches, teams and judges won’t be inappropriately swayed by the title’s (surely unintentional) framing. Readers of the blog know that abortion is one of my favorite ethical issues, and that I’ve been encouraging case committees to include abortion cases for some time. So THANK YOU NHSEB Case Committee. #13 is a gentle, classy way to broach abortion ethics, and to test the waters for more direct discussions in the future.
In fact, let’s test the waters right here. Download the official set from NHSEB.unc.edu (click the Cases link at the top). But here’s #13 in full, all credit to the original authors. If you’re brave enough to share your initial thoughts, that’s what that Leave a Reply section is for (appears when you open articles individually).
2022-2023 NHSEB Regional Case #13. “Our Baby, My Body” [or “Properly Balancing Parental Autonomy During Pregnancy”]
Tom and Melinda are about to have a baby together. They are both committed to raising the child together as a family, and they have made many of the decisions about how they’re going to raise the child as a team. Recently, though, Melinda has been engaging in activities that Tom thinks are unnecessarily risky for the health of their future child. She has continued going into work instead of working from home when her employees have reported they are sick with COVID-19. Tom has mentioned that the most recent information shows that there are risks for the pregnancy if Melinda catches COVID-19, including a pre-term birth or stillbirth. She also continues to exert herself physically more than Tom thinks is necessary for her or healthy for the baby.
Tom believes that, since he is an equal partner in raising the child, he should have an equal say in how Melinda acts when it comes to the health of the child. He does not think it is unfair of him to tell Melinda that she needs to work from home when her co-workers are sick, or to insist that she stop exerting herself around the house and let him do the chores. After all, it is his child too, and just like all of the other decisions that they’ve made about how they are going to raise it, he thinks that the decisions Melinda makes that would affect the child should be equally open for discussion (and even potential veto).
Melinda, on the other hand, believes that Tom is being overbearing and controlling. She believes that, until the baby is born, it is her body, and she is free to do what she wants. As long as she is carrying their child, she says, her wants and desires will always outweigh Tom’s because he is not the one that has to live with the pregnancy. Tom is free to offer his input, and she will always take it into consideration out of respect for him as a partner, but the final decision is hers. She argues that Tom is being unfair and has no right to be upset when she acts contrary to his desires.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Are Tom and Melinda truly equal partners during the pregnancy, or do Melinda’s concerns for her own autonomy take precedence?
2. What sort of responsibilities does Melinda have toward Tom and his concerns as the father of the child she’s carrying?
3. Do Tom and Melinda’s respective shares in decision-making change after the baby is born? If so, how and why?
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.
⦾ 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?
NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #2. Trust the Science
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! 😉
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?”