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!
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
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 Massachusettsconcerning 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
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.
Math teachers often require students to show their work. Even if your answer is correct, they want to see how you got it to confirm that you understand why.
Showing your work in Logic class looks like this… (Logic is only slightly more fun than this suggests)
Showing your work is even more important with theoretical mathematics where the correct answer is unknown. (I imagine problems involving infinity and that “i” symbol I vaguely remember from Calculus…) The transparency enables mathematicians to progress through unknown territory together. Were one to exclaim, “Eureka, X = -12.4!” the rest would rightly reply, “Great. But please explain why. Please show your work.”
Philosophy is similar to theoretical mathematics in this way. The correct answer is often unknown or disputed. Philosophers need to articulate their assumptions, logical moves, caveats and reasoning. That way others can consider their premises’ plausibility, the logical catalysts’ strength etc. – to judge whether the proposed conclusion truly makes sense. And if not, it helps them see how they might repair the reasoning chain to arrive at a better-defended position.
Part of making a good ethics bowl presentation entails explaining how your team arrived at its position. That way the other team and judges can fairly evaluate your view. It’s not enough to simply share your position. You need to thoroughly and clearly divulge the reasoning that got you there.
This exposure can feel intimidating. “What if we’ve made a mistake? They’ll know!” But it’s the only way to demonstrate that your position is worth others’ rational assent. Even if the judges agree with your conclusion (that prison labor is wrong or euthanizing healthy pets is OK or whatever), they need to understand how your team got there. They need to be able to verify the quality of your argument.
So show your work. Not only in math class, and not only in philosophy papers. But at all stages of ethics bowl – your initial presentation, your commentary on the other team’s argument, and during the judges Q&A.
And feel free to show your work in informal political and moral discussions as well. Don’t simply endorse candidate X – explain why you prefer candidate x over candidate y. If your reasons are truly good, maybe you’ll win additional support. If they’re not, finding out and changing your mind before it’s too late is a good thing. And maybe (just maybe) you’ll start a trend. Imagine that – a world in which people clearly explained their positions and modified them (rather than simply reasserting them, only louder) when proven wrong.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Ethics Bowl community had a concise, accessible, fun book to gift prospective coaches, competitors, judges and sponsors? A book that explained in plain, relaxed language why ethics bowl’s collaborative, mutually respectful approach is exactly what the world needs, possibly now more than ever? A book that weaved together stories and quotes from competitors, coaches, organizers, judges, moderators – quotes from you?
Wish no more! Introducing Ethics Bowl to the Rescue!, coming early 2021, with your help. With support and endorsement from ethics bowl creator Dr. Bob Ladenson, we cordially invite you, dear ethics bowl participant, organizer, volunteer or fan, to share why you love and continue to support ethics bowl. Nothing fancy required. The plan is to share the many benefits of ethics bowl into chapters on topics such as:
Civility
Friendship
Social Change
Self-Knowledge
Public Speaking
Critical Thinking
Moral Development
Personal Confidence
Philosophical Appreciation
Don’t worry that you’re not involved or advanced or impressive enough to contribute – it doesn’t matter if you’re a first-year Jr. High bowler or a tenth-year Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl organizer, the reigning National High School Ethics Bowl champs or the last-place team from our smallest Regional – there’s a place for your input in Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! and I’d love to include it.
I’d even love to include input from Australia’s Ethics Olympiad and Ethics Slam – ya’ll might get your own chapter 🙂
If you’re not sure what to say, a funny or heartwarming ethics bowl-related story would be fan-freaking-tastic. Or simply share from the heart what ethics bowl means to you.
The book will be affordably available (Amazon’s cut + printing costs) in paperback for those who still like to hold physical books, and also in open-source PDF (and Kindle, Apple, etc. if I can figure out the conversion…) for free that the community will be welcome and encouraged email, host, post and otherwise share as they see fit.
Submission Window: July 1st – October 31st, 2020
Email Submissions to: matt(at)mattdeaton.com (<- replace “(at)” with “@” – the parentheses are a crude spam deterrent). Or if you prefer, simply post in a comment here.
Again, don’t think of this is a complete essay, or an academic (stuffy) article, or even an ethics argument. But rather a relaxed telling that I’ll pull from and incorporate into a book that explains why more people should try ethics bowl.
Questions welcome. And feel free and encouraged to share this widely. Organizers, please tell your volunteers and coaches. Coaches, please tell your teams. Teams, get to writing 🙂
Thanks in advance, and looking forward to reading why you continue to love and support ethics bowl, just like me, Matt
This week our friends at the Parr Center announced a virtual ethics bowl celebration scheduled for mid-June – the 2020 Ethics Bowl Summit.
“[T]he NHSEB invites you to join in a review, recognition, and celebration of some of the extraordinary things our community has accomplished this year! The 2020 Ethics Bowl Summit is scheduled for 7pm (ET) on the evening of [Saturday] June 13, 2020 and will feature exciting updates and developments from NHSEB leadership, perspectives from students, coaches, and organizers across the U.S., and, of course, recognition of our regional winners, case competition winners, national finalist teams, and more!”
The event will be viewable via live stream on YouTube and on the NHSEB’s social medial platforms. Full information will be posted at NHSEBonline.org. So mark your calendar, and hope to see you there (online).
Organizers of the Michigan High School Ethics Bowl invite you to write a COVID-themed case for the 2020-2021 season.
Art by Raphael. Captions by A2Ethics.
From an email distributed by A2Ethics late May, “There are so many ethical dilemmas we are witnessing and going through… [W]e urge you to include the moral dimensions of what is happening. Or not happening… to broaden and embolden your diary and journal-keeping by: Writing an ethics case study for the 2021 Michigan High School Ethics Bowl. Now is a perfect time to practice risky thinking–during a time of extreme risk. What political philosopher Hannah Arendt calls ‘thinking without a banister.’”
And don’t be shy! Maybe you’ve never written a case before. Maybe your case won’t be selected. But simply giving it a shot will make you a better writer, a better bowler, and probably a braver, more action-oriented person. Somebody’s case has to be chosen. Why not yours?
This past Tuesday evening, having grown bored of Adam Sandler’s Uncut Gems (Waterboy is more my style), I decided to call it a night around 11:30. Checking my email one last time, I saw a message from Ethics Olympiad director Matthew Wills from 9:55: “The Olympiad is beginning…”
I was confused. I’d been honored to be invited to serve as a judge for the online event. But it was scheduled for the following evening – Wednesday, May 27th at 10 p.m. Tennessee time, which would be 11 a.m. in Perth. My error became apparent when I realized that while it was still Tuesday, May 26th in Tennessee, it was in fact already Wednesday, May 27th in Australia…
I sent a quick apology, and wrestled with whether to hide or log on. My better side won the debate and I quickly joined the Zoom meeting (not taking time to change out of my blue jammies) to see if there was anything I might be able to do, and if nothing else, to apologize via video.
Matthew was all smiles and graciousness, per usual – not the nervous wreck that organizers sometimes devolve into, especially when their judges flake out…
Smartly, he’d pre-recruited a backup, just in case, and everything was progressing as planned. He asked if I’d like to sit in on one of the heats in a Zoom break-out room.
Surreal seeing the sun shining when it’s near midnight(!). Yay, technology.
It was for a match between Santa Sabina College and St. Peters Girls Academy. The teams were together at their respective schools, judges Rosalind Walsh and Jennifer Duke-Wonge appeared to be in their offices, and so too was moderator Theo Stapleton.
Considering the NHSEB case, “Is it OK to Punch a Nazi?” the teams were both well-prepared, and quick on their feet. They were respectful and engaged, and did a nice job sharing the floor, taking turns to elaborate on and clarify their arguments. The judges asked excellent questions (homing in on key aspects of the teams’ positions, but doing so in a friendly way), and Theo did an expert job keeping everyone on track – a wonderful balance of professionalism and warmth.
Zoom proved a superb platform. The video quality was great, and as far as I could tell, hardly glitched at all. My own connection was via a smartphone hotspot, which I worried might not be able to keep up. But it did without issue, and so did everyone else’s – a mini miracle I’m still impressed to witness.
The result of the event, which featured 8 teams from 8 different schools, was that St Peters Girls Adelaide, Santa Sabina College Sydney and The Kings School Sydney advanced to participate in the China Australia Ethics Olympiad on June 25th. Congrats to all three, and to the other teams who were all very close in the final scores.
Kudos to Matthew for doing such a nice job with the event. The participants appeared to enjoy themselves and grow from the experience. And this COVID-driven transition to online Ethics Olympiads (and Bowls) will no doubt continue to expand opportunities for international collaboration. There’s something reassuring about seeing teams on the other side of the globe (made apparent by the fact that it’s midnight where I am, yet I can see sunlight out the classroom window behind a team) think through cases addressed next door. There’s also something special about how Australians can say “cheers” with such authenticity…
And if you yourself are invited to participate in an international Ethics Olympiad, pay special attention to not only the local time, but the date. Don’t get sucked into bad movies on Netflix. And maybe be on standby the day before and after with a polo and sports jacket, just in case.
Last week National High School Ethics Bowl Director Alex Richardson shared the following with regional organizers. Reprinted here in full (with complementary video) Alex outlines the move of NHSEB online, includes links to several engaging resources, and (unless I’m misreading – have messaged Alex to confirm) expands inclusion beyond winners of the regional bowls to all NHSEB participants(!). May 8th UPDATE: Alex confirmed — the new online resources are open to all NHSEB Regional participants! Kudos to UNC for making these changes to sustain (and grow!) ethics bowl during this challenging age of COVID.
I hope you are all staying safe and healthy during what is shaping up to be a challenging time for us all.
My team at the Parr Center and I have been working hard in the past few weeks to bring parts of the NHSEB experience online in the wake of the cancellation of our National Competition due to COVID-19. Today, I’m thrilled to introduce you to NHSEBOnline, a new slate of programming to engage our students virtually and keep up the conversations that make our activity what it is.
The program will include three central initiatives: (1) asynchronous online Discussion Threads which allow students to engage each other in conversation about an abridged Case Set via video, audio, and text-based messaging, (2) weekly Group “Huddles” where students can discuss problems and prospects with NHSEB staff and volunteer organizers via videoconference, and finally (3) a virtual Ethics Bowl Summit in late May which will bring together students, organizers, volunteers, and parents from across the country to recognize and feature our National Finalists, celebrate with all of our students, and close out the 2019-2020 season! More information about format and scheduling for the Summit will be released in the coming weeks. I hope you’ll share this message and the video above with your coaches and students. Registration for participants is now open. We are also continually looking for volunteer organizers to help out with the administration of the program and planning for the end of the year. Your help is most welcome! Conversation is the essence of this activity, and I’m so excited to see it continue, particularly during the complex and challenging times we find ourselves in.
I hope you’ll join us in this experiment, and encourage your students and coaches to do the same.
Alex Richardson, Director, National High School Ethics Bowl, Parr Center for Ethics, UNC Chapel Hill
