EthicsBowl.org

The NHSEB case-writing team deserves kudos for all the cases, but I especially enjoyed case #7. It enriched and challenged my understanding, and left me undecided on the issue even 24 hours after first reading it. Let’s see if I can make some sense of my conflicting intuitions.

Case 7 asks us to consider the ethics of outside influence in domestic political decisions, and offers three examples:

• Foreign activists influencing the 2018 referendum on Ireland’s constitutional abortion ban
• Civil rights activists (often from areas of the country outside of the South) advocating for desegregation and racial equality during the 1960s
• Russian-funded political ads which influenced the 2016 American presidential election

On the one hand, maybe the result is what’s most important. If we think that overturning Ireland’s abortion ban was morally best, the progress of the Civil Rights movement was morally best, and the outcome of the 2016 election was morally best, then we might welcome outside influence.

On the other hand, maybe we want each country’s citizens to make their own political decisions. Part of the allure of democracy is that it allows people to self-govern through the collective consideration and endorsement of laws. But to the extent that the legislative and voting process is manipulated by outsiders, the result doesn’t reflect the untainted views of the citizenry.

With the Civil Rights movement, one could argue (and the case alludes to the fact) that while Freedom Riders often weren’t from segregationist states, they were citizens of the United States, and since civil rights was a federal issue, their influence wasn’t external after all, or at least not as external as Americans influencing Ireland’s abortion policies, or Russians influencing America’s presidency.

The civil rights scenario is actually the only one with an uncontroversial outcome, for it’s clear that humans deserve equal treatment independent of their race. Abortion, on the other hand, is hotly contested, and so too is whether Clinton or Trump were better suited to be America’s president. Therefore, it might be best to set aside the abortion and presidency cases and focus on the Civil Rights activists, or to (possibly even better) consider a hypothetical scenario where the morality is less controversial.

Imagine European protestors opposing Hitler. On the one hand, we respect Germans’ interest in autonomous self-government. But on the other hand, it’s clear that Nazi death camps are unethical – in fact so unethical as to override our usual deference to countries’ citizens to self-govern. In this clear case, it would seem that the outcome is more important than the process, and therefore we’d endorse outside interference.

It’s questionable whether we’d say the same for less extreme cases – might want to defer to a peoples’ internal judgment when equally intelligent people reasonably disagree, as they continue to do over both abortion and Trump v. Clinton. However, you might argue that the stakes for abortion in Ireland and/or the presidency in the U.S. were similarly grave to those of death camps in Germany. One pits women’s interest in being able to end unwanted pregnancies against the value of a potential person. The other concerns the influence of a nation’s chief executive on everything from healthcare to Supreme Court Justice nominees to control of the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Those are some pretty high stakes!  Arguably high enough to allow outside interference, only though only of the right sort.

That is, whatever your current view on abortion and Trump v. Clinton, imagine like-minded foreigners working to move American politics in that direction. When the outside support is on your side, it doesn’t seem as objectionable, does it? Or are your own intuitions driving you to defer instead to the integrity of the democratic process? I remain conflicted… But then when I consider outside protestors opposing Hitler, return to the tentative view that when the stakes are high enough, outside intervention is OK.

Teams, you have the luxury of a group of intelligent teammates and coaches – hoping these initial thoughts will spur good discussion. Should you figure this out, please share in a comment below – I need the help 🙂 Cheers, Matt

Case #5 in the 2020 Nationals case pool concerns a newlywed Indian named Nandi. Nandi and his wife get some big news: #1 they’re pregnant. #2 Nandi “has received a scholarship to pursue a college education at a prestigious university in the United States.” They decide to move, but promise their families they will return once Nandi has earned his Bachelor’s.

Nandi not only earns his Bachelor’s, but is offered entry into an impressive Ph.D. program “with the promise of full funding and the prospect of a successful and lucrative career.” He accepts, and after 7 years away from home, receives word that his father has died.

Per Indian tradition, since Nandi is the eldest son, he is expected to welcome his widowed mother into his home and care for her for the duration of her life. However, his mother is unwilling to move to the U.S. (which would require her to leave Nandi’s four sisters), and reminds Nandi of his promise to return to India after earning his Bachelor’s.

At its core, this case pits personal ambition and family betterment against broader familial obligations and the binding power of promise. Can a win-win compromise be achieved? And if one can’t, which decision is all-things-considered most ethical?

The second study question is a good one, asking, “What are the relevant factors Nandi should consider when making his decision?” Factors to entertain would include:

The impact on Nandi’s mother. Depending on his choice, how emotionally harmed is she likely to be? How severely would finishing his Ph.D. before returning to India damage their relationship? (With transparent discussion, could she respect his decision and be reassured, or would anything short of immediate and permanent return be perceived as an unforgivable betrayal?) Would she be able to live comfortably without him short-term? (For example, if she’d become immediately homeless and starve, this would be reason to return now. If she’d be materially secure and emotionally supported by her daughters while Nandi completed his schooling, this would lighten the moral scales on that side.)

The impact on Nandi’s wife. The case doesn’t mention Nandi’s wife’s preferences or interests. Would she prefer to live in the U.S. or India? Is she pursuing her own education or career? Does she miss or have additional obligations to her own family? Is her delayed return to India causing grief with her own parents?

The impact on Nandi’s child. Nandi’s child currently isn’t able to visit aunts, uncles, cousins or grandparents. The child is also growing up immersed in American rather than Indian culture (maybe a bad thing, maybe a good thing – those who know more about Indian culture than I do will have to decide). What’s the general quality of life – safety, educational opportunities, recreation – where they’ve been living in the U.S. vs. where they would be living in India? Does the child have strong friendships?

The time remaining in his Ph.D. studies. If only a few months, this would mitigate some of the negative impacts of continuing his studies in the U.S.

The nature and potential impact of his studies. The case details don’t clarify what Nandi’s Ph.D. is in. Nuclear medicine or basket weaving? Sustainable tech or bowling? To the extent that Nandi’s studies have a real potential to substantially better mankind, this would weight the scales in favor of continuing his studies.

Possible win-win solutions. Might Nandi be able to complete the remainder of his doctorate long-distance with a handful of quick trips to the U.S., or possibly transfer to a school in India? Depending on her age and health, might Nandi return to India, focus on caring for his mother for now, and then return to the U.S. and finish his studies upon her death?

Win-wins are definitely a good thing in the real world. However, as any team advancing to the nationals knows, ethics bowl cases are intentionally written to pit conflicting considerations against one another, to force teams to make and explain principled decisions. So while it doesn’t hurt to have a few dilemma-resolving solutions in your back pocket, know that judges expect teams to be able to make tough calls, and are likely to change the details to force teams to make a principled decision. For example, “That’s great, but assume Nandi can’t pursue his doctorate long-distance? Which considerations would win in that case and why?”