Posts

Posted on

Dining Out During a Pandemic – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 6

This year 2020 faced a global crisis through the Pandemic COVID-19, formerly known as SARS-CoV-2. In early March of this year, many stores in the United States began closing down, and the economy began to shut down. Organizations deemed as non-essential were closed, and the people were instructed to remain in their homes unless they absolutely needed to go out. This case study analysis will address some ethical issues regarding dining out during the pandemic.

This guest post was graciously written by Mr. Luis Villanueva of East Texas.

Is it unethical to dine-in at restaurants in the midst of a pandemic such as COVID-19? The answer to this question is yes, it can be. However, it can also be unethical not to allow restaurants to remain in business.

It can be unethical to dine out during the pandemic because doing so unnecessarily increases the likelihood of the disease spreading out. Eating out requires taking off protective masks which the CDC (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) deems necessary to protect the public. Taking off the mask at one’s table and calling it the “off mask” section is like being in a pool and calling a certain area the “pee section.” It’s going to spread! The urine will travel through the water just like the virus would travel through the air. Moreover, there is really no way to completely eliminate the chances of catching the virus while dining out. Because people eat out at public restaurants, they are putting themselves and others at risk of infection, and it is therefore not the best ethical decision.

It can also be unethical to close down a family restaurant. Refraining from supporting a dear one’s business would de-emphasize the needs and interests of loved ones. Say for instance there is a single-mother working hard to feed her seven young daughters, and she owns a restaurant that provides her only source of income. Shutting it down would place her in a very difficult dilemma. Does she close and let her daughters starve? Or does she keep her business open at the cost of increasing the risk of viral infection?

What about the immediate people who work for her, like cooks and waiters? Closing down the restaurant would also cost these people their jobs and their ability to take care of their families.  Statistically speaking, they have a much greater chance of surviving the COVID-19 virus than they do surviving starvation from lack of food or shelter. Keeping the restaurant open is not meant to be an easy ethical choice. And certainly this pandemic year has not necessarily been the most enjoyable, fun, or thrilling year for everyone (although some folks have been able to find so many things to be grateful for even in a year like 2020). From a Care Ethics perspective, it would be understandable, and ethical, if the single-mother kept her restaurant open to prioritize the basic needs of her seven little girls. 

What responsibility do Andy and Megan have to protect the health of others, especially if those others choose to put themselves at risk? As the article explains, Megan and Andy used to go out to eat quite a lot before the pandemic. This of course strengthened the profits of the businesses where they dined. Some could say though that they both have a responsibility to stay at home to decrease the chance of spreading the disease. Even if others choose to put themselves at risk by going to public restaurants, Megan and Andy could avoid dining out in order to protect people from greater risk of infection. Not going out to restaurants could be Megan and Andy’s contribution to reduce the chances of spreading COVID-19.

How should decisions balancing the support of the economy and the protection of people’s health be made during a pandemic?  This question is really where everything is headed to. What is the balance? Perhaps one could use the production-possibilities frontier to explain what the best course of action would be. This process is very similar to a consequentialist perspective that strives to maximize profit or “net pleasure.” So, according to the production-possibilities frontier, there exists the right amount to balance out supporting the economy and protecting people’s health.

Say for example, that the country closes down all stores altogether, including gas stations, supermarkets, and of course all restaurants. This would be inefficient because people would likely perish from hunger and thirst even so more than they would from the coronavirus. On the other hand, if all restaurants remained open as they normally are, and, just to make things interesting, if all senior citizens who are vulnerable to the virus were given free groceries or meals as an incentive to get out of the house more, then virus cases would skyrocket considerably and possibly turn out fatal for the people of tertiary age. So what the PPF (production-possibilities frontier) would suggest is to do what maximizes net safety. That is, keep enough supermarkets and shops so that people don’t starve out of their basic needs, while at the same time close many others down so as to negate the effect of rising coronavirus cases.

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

Final Call for Ethics Bowl Book Submissions

If you’ve been meaning to submit a write-up for Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! but just haven’t gotten around to it, don’t miss your chance!

Pour a hot cup of Joe, put that pesky smartphone on airplane mode, and shoot me your thoughts on why ethics bowl rocks, your hopes (and fears) for its future, and anything you’re inclined to share.

Leave the fancy writing to me — literary perfection is neither required nor expected. I’ll simply be pulling key quotes and weaving them into the book’s narrative. So you don’t even have to worry about writing a coherent essay — just answer the prompt. Submissions welcome from organizers, coaches, judges, moderators, competitors and simply fans.

Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! Interview Questions – please submit to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by Oct 31 (shortly thereafter is also OK if you mail me Reese’s Cups):

1) Why were you initially attracted to ethics bowl and why do you continue to support it?

2) What do you see as ethics bowl’s primary benefits?

3) What’s your vision for ethics bowl’s future?

4) Anything extra you’d like to add?

5) What’s your role and how long have you been involved?

Posted on

Virtual Bowling Zen from A2Ethics

If you’re an organizer scrambling to pull together virtual bowl training materials, take a deep breath, strike your favorite yoga pose, and click here. Michigan HSEB organizer Jeanine DeLay and her team at A2Ethics offer a relaxing, reassuring judge training video sure to chillax volunteers and participants worldwide.

One of the things we love about A2Ethics – their style! Here’s Jeanine encouraging judge trainees to stand and stretch.

If you’re an organizer, Jeannine can empathize with the worries that keep you up at night, likening bowl coordination to “mosquito control at a nudist camp.” Luckily we learn from one another’s mistakes and build on one another’s successes. Past problems have inspired redundant point-tallying officials, recruiting, courting and training more volunteers than needed, and in Michigan this year implementation of a new alternate judging system.

While only three judges’ score sheets will be counted, four judges will log into Zoom to view and score each match. Why? If one of the official judges’ computers decides bowl time is the perfect time for a forced reboot, the alternate judge will be promoted, their scores included in the totals. Tada! Simple, seamless, effective.

One note: the scoring interface featured in the video is unique to the Michigan Bowl. I’ve tested it and it works great – suspect creator Wayne Eaker of Zengenuity, Inc would be willing to discuss how to do something similar at your bowl if interested. Thanks for your devotion and leadership, Jeanine and team! The best of luck with your upcoming V-Bowl.

That familiar match format, even if via an unfamiliar platform

Have your own virtual bowl disaster avoidance ideas? New virtual bowling materials others might benefit from? Share in a comment or shoot me an email and we’ll get the word out in an article – collaboration and cooperation are what ethics bowl is all about.

Posted on

Factory Farming – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 1

Case 1 this NHSEB season comes out pretty hard against factory farming. This is uncharacteristic of ethics bowl cases, which usually offer a decent balance of reasons for and against. The lopsided presentation may be appropriate due to just how difficult factory farming is to morally defend. However, one angle to consider is how beef production and consumption doesn’t seem quite as morally problematic as other forms of meat.

Napoleon reconsidering his career choice…

Industrial vs. Mom and Pop

First, it’s important to distinguish factory farming from family and hobby farming. Our romanticized image of agrarian animal husbandry still exists. I bottle fed calves as a teenager in the 90s. My wife’s family once raised a pig. Thousands of preparedness-minded suburbanites built luxury chicken coups at the outset of COVID. These examples aren’t what case 1 is targeting.

Factory farmed pigs are kept in industrial buildings on concrete floors, separated from their mother shortly after birth, and given little opportunity for interaction or mental stimulation. Despite what the entitled dogs in Babe may say, pigs are famously smart, as smart as or smarter than canines. Imagine thousands of bright Australian Shepherds, eager to herd and frolic and fetch, instead confined to concrete cells. Now imagine equally intelligent pigs in the same predicament, no warm mud to wallow in, no landscape to explore.

As Napoleon Dynamite discovered, factory farmed chickens are crammed into cages so small they can’t even spread their wings. Imagine having a powerful instinctual drive to do something as simple as flapping, yet being smothered between a wire cage that cuts into your feet and fellow prisoners pecking at your face. For your entire life. Whether bred for poultry or eggs, factory farmed chickens lead pretty miserable lives.

This just scratches the surface. If you’re up for the full gory truth, PETA and similar organizations routinely send spies undercover to record how factory farms are run. So do some research – ensure your position on factory farms is based on a fair and accurate assessment of actual, current conditions. But just as we shouldn’t accept the myth that all farms are happy farms, we shouldn’t conclude all meat sources are equally tortured.

Bacon vs. Beef

While some factory farmed animals have it really bad, it would be a sweeping generalization to conclude all meat sources are severely mistreated.

Beef cattle, for example, often live a decent life up until the point of slaughter. They’re usually free to roam and graze, breed and birth, and are left largely to behave as they might in the wild. This isn’t because beef farmers are necessarily concerned with cows’ happiness. Giving them room to roam is simply efficient and convenient. Cattle need grass (and hay during the winter), a water source (any pond or creek will do), and a good enough fence. Fenced fields are cheap. Pond water falls freely from the sky. So long as you don’t have too many cows per acre, or you rotate the herd at regular intervals, grass grows on its own. I know because I live in cattle country and thanks to kind neighbors enjoy ATV rides along and through cow pastures regularly (watch for those patties!). Beef cattle aren’t pampered. But their lives usually aren’t as bad as factory farmed pigs and chickens.

Of course, veal’s another story. Veal comes from calves who have weights tied around their necks to prevent them from moving. This ensures their meat is tender and white, which is what makes veal veal.

Cows are also sometimes artificially inseminated rather than naturally bred. Having a farmer impregnate you with a long straw feels invasive, cow or not. Young bulls often have their testicles removed via a thick rubber band that cuts off the blood supply and causes the scrotum to rot and fall off (this turns bulls into steers, preferred because steers are less aggressive and easier to handle). The de-horning process is painful and traumatic. Horns are either prevented from growing with an acidic cream, or cut off with shears (horns look cool, but being gored isn’t).

So it’s not all green grass and loafing. But hey, cattle are largely left alone, receive water, food and medical attention, I’m assuming even at the largest operations. Simply being able to roam outdoors is worth a great deal, and so beef cattle in particular would seem to have a less miserable life than non-free range poultry chickens and laying hens, as well as factory farmed pigs.

We should also note that dairy (milk-producing) cows have it worse off than beef cattle. I know because I’ve visited local dairies – watched a high school buddy dip a cow’s udders in an iodine solution before attaching the suction mechanism that drained its milk. One hardship is that dairy cows are kept perpetually pregnant – that’s why they’re able to continually produce milk. Male offspring aren’t especially useful on a dairy farm, and are sold to be raised for beef. That’s how I obtained my own calves as a kid, by buying 3-day-old Holsteins from a local dairy which I’d then raise to 6 months or so and sell to farmers at auction.

I concede this so you know the extent and limits of my experience with farm animals. Full factory farms I know only through YouTube. But medium-sized beef cattle and dairy farms and hobby egg operations, I’ve seen up close. I actually raised chickens as a kid – my favorite’s name was Cluck. My first calf’s name was Buttercup. If your only encounters with farm animals have been at the zoo, do some research so your view isn’t based on an overly rosy or an overly ugly myth. The truth is somewhere in between.

Size Matters

Ethicist and philosophy grad school buddy Joel MacClellan once made a convincing argument that it’s less morally problematic to eat meat from large as opposed to small animals. Why? One cow can supplement a small family’s diet for an entire year. However, one chicken won’t last a week. In fact, if KFC’s family-sized buckets are any indication, sometimes it takes more than one chicken to feed a single family a single meal.

Assuming cows’ and chicken’ ‘lives and suffering matter equally, if killing and eating one rather than the other would decrease suffering and death, all else equal, that’s the one people should eat. In fact, if whale meat were healthy and sustainable, according to this line of argument, we should all switch to whale. Or bear or hippopotamus or whatever.

MacClellan’s insistence that we eat meat in ways that minimizes overall pain and maximizes overall pleasure is consistent with the argument Australian philosopher Peter Singer offers in Animal Liberation. A Utilitarian, Singer contrasts the pleasure humans get from the taste of animal flesh with the great suffering animals must endure to provide it, concluding that our pleasure is far outweighed by their pain. His logic is hard to deny.

Given that factory farms are especially miserable, Singer’s argument is most powerful for animals stuck in them, living under the worst conditions. And combined with MacClellan’s argument, it would seem that eating smaller animals, which presumably endure greater suffering to produce similar nutrition and taste satisfaction, is more morally problematic than eating larger animals.

Thus, a reasonable person interested in developing a nuanced position on factory farming might conclude that it’s less wrong to eat non-veal beef as opposed to chicken, bacon and other meats. Why? Because non-veal beef cattle’s lives aren’t as terrible, and each can provide many times more satisfaction and nutrition to those who consume them.

Of course, an even more reasonable person might insist that carnivores eat wild deer or salmon, or synthetic meats grown in a lab (wait, wasn’t that an ethics bowl case from last season?). And an even more reasonable person might insist we satisfy our taste buds with yummy fruits and vegetables, and get our nutrition from pain-free plant-based proteins. But if your team isn’t ready for all that, try pitching this approach. And whatever the case, base your views on a realistic assessment of what factory farming is all about.

P.S. Australian Ethics Olympiad coach Andre Costantino wrote this excellent post on the ethics of meat consumption only two months ago. It’s on a different ethics bowl case, and not specific to factory farming. But it does address common misconceptions and bad rationalizations likely to come up during prep and/or competition.

P.P.S. Notice how the analysis above steers the conversation away from traditional factory farming, and also how it doesn’t directly address the enumerated list of harms found in the case’s final paragraph. To thoroughly prepare your team, be sure they’re ready to answer the question asked (oh man, practice question 3 with this one is tough!) , and also have some thoughts on the issues raised in the case which include environmental harms, labor-related issues, the fact that meat-eating is often unhealthy, and how large factory farms run smaller operations out of business.

Posted on

Introducing NHSEBAcademy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NHSEBAcademy.org/live

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

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

Posted on

2020-2021 NHSEB Case Pool Released

A brand new NHSEB case pool was released today, and the topics are promising. There are cases on mask wearing, police de-funding, TikTok, and my favorite — Tiger King!

We’ll begin sharing initial analyses soon. But guest posts are often the best posts, so if you or your team would like to claim one of the cases (not Tiger King – I got dibs), shoot me an email (matt (at) mattdeaton.com) and we’ll get your thoughts posted soon.

Check out the cases via nhseb.unc.edu -> Cases or directly here. And happy analyzing, you cool cats and kittens!

Posted on

Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! Update

Huge thanks to the organizers, judges, coaches and competitors who’ve already agreed to submit or who’ve submitted write-ups for Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! From founders Bob and Joanne in California, to organizers Richard and Rachel in Utah, Fred in Baltimore, Leo in Shanghai, Jeanine in Michigan, Matthew in Perth, Greg in Texas, Matt in Ohio, Alex in Oregon, Roberta in New York, Alex in North Carolina and George in Florida, to judges Tim, Andrew and Dirk in Australia, as well as Ted, Rob and Claire in Portland, to coaches Michael in Washington and Lance in Tennessee, it’s great to have so much support this early. Thanks to all!

I’ve attempted to invite all National High School and Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl organizers (well, almost all — still a couple of names left on this very long list), so if you haven’t received an email, please check your spam folder and/or please contact me directly.

I’m asking organizers to nominate judges, coaches, moderators, participants and others they think might be able to contribute. However, ethics bowl organizers are notoriously busy people, especially with this COVID-corrupted semester underway, and most are understandably preoccupied with trying to figure out how to best host their bowl via Zoom. (I understand bowl leadership is ahead of the game on this, which is very good news – maybe everyone can relax?) So I hereby personally invite anyone sharing a love for ethics bowl, including you, to answer the following:

1) Why were you initially attracted to ethics bowl and why do you continue to support it?

2) What do you see as ethics bowl’s primary benefits?

3) What’s your vision for ethics bowl’s future?

4) Anything extra you’d like to add?

Nothing fancy or complete required. I’ll simply be pulling key quotes from submissions as I write the book. Please send your responses and any questions to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by October 31st.

Thanks in advance. The world needs to know why ethics bowl is such an impactful and awesome event perhaps now more than ever. It’s Ethics Bowl to the Rescue!, and there’s no reason we should keep that good news to ourselves. Cheers, Matt

Posted on

The BLT – Babe, Lettuce and Tomato

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

Fancy a BLT?

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

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

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

The appeal to empathy

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

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

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

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

The problems of ideology

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

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

There is an awkward silence. 

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

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

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

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

Back to the BLT

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

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

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

Would I order the BLT?

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

Andrew Costantino, Santa Sabina College, Sydney, Australia

Posted on

Australian Cookie Ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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