Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! We’re enjoying it with a little snow here in East Tennessee – have sleds tied to the back of the family 4-wheeler ready to go. Hoping you’re staying cozy wherever you find yourself.
Coming into the home stretch of NHSEB regionals, here are three additional study guides from Coach Michael. His team will be participating in the Oregon HSEB February 3rd and 4th at Portland State.
Special kudos to Michael and team for being willing to share these with the full Ethics Bowl community, including teams they’ll go up against in a few weeks. Now that’s the spirit of Ethics Bowl!
This past Sunday, a small group of Ethics Bowl organizers, coaches and enthusiasts met for an informal, unofficial discussion on how ChatGPT and other generative AI tools might be used for Ethics Bowl. The purpose wasn’t to settle much of anything, but to inspire further discussion at the upcoming NHSEB regionals and nationals, as well as IEB nationals.
Why? Teams are surely using it. And given that Ethics Bowl participants, coaches, judges, moderators, organizers, their families and fans are among the most thoughtful people in the world, inviting them into a collective discussion on how to properly incorporate this technology seems a no-brainer. It’s an ethics question about Ethics Bowl – doesn’t get much more relevant than that. If you agree, please share this article and/or the accompanying recording, and report back any and all ideas worth sharing. Some upshots:
How to Best Leverage AI for Ethics Bowl Prep: Think of it as a conversation partner, tutor, rough draft-generator and/or judge/opposing team simulator. Understand its limitations. Fact check. Reason check. Moral blind spot check. Bias check. It’s a strong supplement to, but not a replacement for, human wisdom and deliberation. And it performs best when guided with insightful follow-ups.
On Worries that a Team Might Use AI to Write a Presentation Script: Using ChatGPT for Ethics Bowl prep isn’t analogous to asking it to do your homework because a) teams need to come to a consensus prior to the event (and it’s unlikely an entire team would agree to memorize and regurgitate a chatbot’s script), and b) due to EB’s live, interactive nature, any team overly reliant on an AI script would be embarrassingly exposed during commentary response and judge Q&A. Also, bowlers are a special self-selected subgroup of the population, far less likely to do anything that might constitute cheating than your average student (most of whom are also unlikely to cheat, but we educators are often paranoid about that).
Steps Ethics Bowl Leaders Can Take: While a team might get away with memorizing an eloquent opening presentation script written for them by a chatbot (the risk is low, but one could), this can be partially mitigated by adjusting score sheets to increase the relative weighting of the commentary, commentary response and judge Q&A portions. (Rules committees, steering committees, other leaders – please give this additional thought – tweaking rubrics might help as well.)
Steps Ethics Bowl Coaches Can Take: The broader community of Ethics Bowl coaches (including Ethics Olympiad, John Stuart Mill Cup, etc. coaches) can and should work together to test, share and recommend AI prompts and techniques that produce the highest quality outputs. They should also remind students of the virtues of democratic deliberation and the risks of intellectual laziness. Consider EthicsBowl.org one place to share such insights.
Steps Case Committees Can Take: Since generative AI seems more effective at scripting responses on cases about real world events (with published editorials for the AI to scan), case writing committees should consider using more fictitious scenarios or putting twists on real world cases (focusing on some interpersonal moral tension within the broader context of a real world issue). This may be unnecessary, but definitely deserves additional thought.
There was more – please watch the video when you have time. But one thing I argued is that AI can serve as an equalizer, connecting all teams (both advantaged and disadvantaged) with an on-demand tutor with an unmatched knowledge base and inexhaustible stamina. Students with the time and interest can learn pretty much anything, including philosophical ethics, so long as they know how to ask good questions. Background knowledge definitely helps, and learning will be slower when the topic is new. But I’m very optimistic about AI’s potential for education.
Special thanks to Michael Andersen for the idea, the planning and co-hosting, as well as to coaches Dick Lesicko, Angela Vahsholtz-Andersen and Chris Ng (thanks also, Chris, for your notes which helped with this article), organizers Jeanine DeLay and Greg Bock for your preparation, attendance and engagement. And apologies to Gabe Kahn, who gets credit for trying to attend! Next time I’ll more closely monitor the Zoom host notifications…
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.
I’ve been reading Rabbi Joshua Liebman’s classic, Peace of Mind,and came across a section on open-mindedness and moral confidence I thought would resonate with the Ethics Bowl community.
“Tolerance is not moral apathy or easy deviation from established principles. If we say apathetically, ‘One notion is a good as another,’ we are not being tolerant; we are merely being lazy… Dense, unenlightened people are notoriously confident that they have the monopoly on truth… But anyone with the faintest glimmerings of imagination knows that truth is broader than any individual conception of it… Renan’s remark that our opinions become fixed at the point where we stop thinking should be sufficient warning against premature hardening of our intellectual arteries, or too stubborn insistence that we are infallibly and invariably right” (76).
Much of the world behaves otherwise, but cocksure arrogance vs. relativistic indifference is a false dilemma.
The mature approach, which takes time to develop, is instead one of principled humility – a desire to seek moral truth combined with a willingness to change our minds.
And that’s exactly the disposition that Ethics Bowl fosters.
Here’s an in-depth article from EthicsBowl.org regular Michael Andersen, an Ethics Bowl coach and Philosophy Club adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics. “Linking Ethics Bowl Cases to Philosophy Club Topics” [PDF copy below] will provide you some ways to extend your school’s positive energy and enthusiasm beyond the Ethics Bowl season.
I consider Michael THE authority on this sort of thing, and I’m thrilled that he’d take the time to produce this especially detailed guide for his fellow coaches, and offer it exclusively here at EthicsBowl.org. In fact, I think we’ll host it permanently on the Resources page…
Look forward to more from Michael here on the blog. He may or may not be joining as an official co-editor!
The following article, including the title, was written by ChatGPT. Why? Earlier this semester I caught a student using AI to complete their weekly reflection prompt in my Ethics Intro. I gave them a zero, but was encouraged by Ethics Olympiad (Australian) students, a retired mentor (thanks, Gary!) and others to try AI for myself, and think about how we might use it symbiotically – to think of it as a valuable aid rather than an enemy or competitor. Enjoy, Matt
Image generated by AI DALL-E 2 according to prompt, “ChatGPT as a moral philosopher typing a blog post for EthicsBowl.org”
As artificial intelligence (AI) continues to advance and become more integrated into our daily lives, ethical questions about its use and development are becoming more pressing. One area where these questions are particularly relevant is in the field of applied ethics, where AI is being used to think through complex ethical cases. One example of this is Ethics Bowl, a competition in which teams of students analyze and debate ethical dilemmas. Some teams are now using AI tools to help them prepare for Ethics Bowl, raising important ethical questions about the role of AI in ethical decision-making.
On the one hand, using AI to analyze ethical cases could be seen as a positive development. AI tools can quickly identify relevant ethical principles and concepts, help teams to identify potential consequences of different courses of action, and provide guidance on how to approach difficult ethical decisions. This can be especially helpful for students who are new to the field of applied ethics and may not have as much experience thinking through complex ethical dilemmas.
However, there are also several potential ethical concerns associated with using AI to analyze ethical cases. One concern is that relying too heavily on AI could lead to a reduction in critical thinking skills. If students become overly reliant on AI tools to identify ethical principles and make decisions, they may be less likely to develop the skills needed to think through ethical dilemmas on their own. This could have negative implications for their future careers and their ability to make sound ethical decisions in a wide range of contexts.
Another concern is that AI may not always be able to accurately capture the nuances of ethical decision-making. Ethical decision-making often involves considering a wide range of factors, such as the consequences of different courses of action, the values and beliefs of different stakeholders, and the potential impact of decisions on different communities. AI may not be able to fully capture these nuances, which could lead to oversimplification of complex ethical dilemmas.
Additionally, there are concerns about the potential biases that may be present in AI tools. AI algorithms are only as unbiased as the data they are trained on, and if the data used to train the AI is biased, the AI may produce biased results. This could have negative implications for Ethics Bowl competitions, where unbiased analysis and decision-making are essential.
In conclusion, while using AI to analyze ethical cases may have some benefits, it also raises important ethical questions about the role of AI in ethical decision-making. As AI continues to develop and become more integrated into our lives, it will be important to carefully consider the ethical implications of its use in fields like applied ethics. Ultimately, the goal should be to use AI tools in a way that enhances our ability to make sound ethical decisions, while also preserving our ability to think critically and to recognize the nuances of complex ethical dilemmas.
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!
As promised, the NHSEBAcademy Studio recently began offering Zoom-based supplementary coaching. Beyond the Staffed Scrimmages, teams also have the option to book a Case Brainstorm session, Presentation Consultation or Practice Q&A.
That this is free and available to any team — public or private, seasoned or rookie, near or far — is marvelous. Coaching on the public speaking aspects will help so many inexperienced and shy participants. And I think the Case Brainstorms will be especially helpful. So often we get caught up in the competitive aspects. A chance to simply share ideas and explore lines of reasoning may be the best way to promote the true spirit of Ethics Bowl yet.
Special thanks to the Parr Center and Team NHSEB for making this superb resource available. Click here to check it out, and please help spread the word!
This article is a continuation of a limited series by Deric Barber. To read the first article click here.
Serious fun—Meyerland’s Madison Price, Isabel Reynoso, Aiden Zider, and Claire Cabral enjoy every minute of the Middle School Ethics Bowl, even the short break between rounds 1 and 2.
Following the debate, I continued my search for a worthy extracurricular activity for my students. It just so happened that Houston was holding its first High School Ethics Bowl. I called the director, Adam Valenstein, and asked if I could observe.
What I found was that when students discussed each case scenario, the teams were not assigned a side to persuade. Rather they created the best solution and shared it.
After Team A’s initial presentation, I listened to Team B’s commentary, and then they began by saying, “Yes, we agree with your stance…” I was amazed; they were agreeing with the other team.
They went on to ask for more clarification on how the first team came to their conclusion and the floor was yielded so the first team could further explain their stance. They began working together to find the best answer. All so courteous. I came to discover later that there are points given for “civil discourse.” The teams practiced civil discourse and were scored for their civility.
As the day went on, I continued to be impressed by the students, their discussions and decorum. Eventually I connected with Valestein, “What do you like best about Ethics Bowl?” His answer was immediate, “It teaches them to listen.” This was the opposite of debate, which teaches them to speak. I saw the profound value in this listening practice because people who listen with a critical mind are what the world needs, and Ethics Bowl is the format that teaches precisely this.
The following year, I went back and started the first Ethics Bowl middle school team at my school, even though there were no other middle school teams for competition. Valestein brought his high schoolers to scrimmage with us that first year. The next year I grew my team and got other middle schools in the area to form teams. The following year we hosted the first Middle School Ethics Bowl (MSEB).
The MSEB has since grown across the nation. The Squire Family Foundation, The Ethics Institute at Kent Place School, regional coordinators, ethicists, and I have come together to form the National Middle School Ethics Bowl Executive Committee to consider the competition’s format, include more middle school teams, secure further funding, and host a National MSEB event. The Ethics Institute at Kent Place, during the pandemic, was able to host the first National Middle School Ethics Bowl online.
Meanwhile we have re-envisioned the middle school competition’s format. The newly created “Open Dialogue” is a forum in which both teams search for the best answer to the case through back and forth discussion among teams. The Dialogue is designed for the practice of dialectical inquiry in which both teams work to gain a deeper understanding of the issues in each case.
Similarly, the “Final Question” is another new feature of the Bowl. At the end of each competitive round, the non-presenting team is asked, “What was the best point the other team made and why?” This encourages careful listening for their reasoning and evidence in the midst of civil discourse. The online MSEB that we held with the “Open Dialogue” and “Final Question” was a great success. It is a quintessential Ethics Bowl: listening, inquiring, together, to discover the best answer to what we should do.
Our friends at UNC’s Parr Center recently announced an expansion of support resources via NHSEBAcademy. As the announcement mentioned, these include “some additional video content added to our Theater, including videos from the Parr Center’s exciting new collaboration with TED-Ed, and content from our partners at the APPE Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl.”
The Ted-Ed collaboration is big news. But what really caught my attention was the promise of live expert-judged scrimmaging.
“NHSEBAcademy’s Coaching Studio has been revamped and now offers on-demand appointments every day of the week and across multiple time zones. In November, the Studio will be updated to include an option for live, online practice scrimmages, moderated and judged by Ethics Bowl experts from the Parr Center. We’re also still working to assemble a fantastic slate of events for NHSEB community members in the NHSEBAcademy Live series, starting with our popular Ethics Bowl Essentials clinics next month, for which registration is now open. More events in this series will be announced later in the Fall, so please stay tuned.”
I know of no activity that better prepares teams for actual Ethics Bowls than scrimmaging. To the extent you can replicate the real thing, they’ll be that much more successful come showtime. And it doesn’t get much more realistic than this.
If you’re a participant or coach and would like to be kept in the loop, just visit NHSEBAcademy’s home page and scroll down to the bottom to sign up for email alerts. And thanks for the awesome and constantly-improving resources, Team Parr!
