Posts

Posted on

2018-2019 IEB Case 15: Day of Absence

The following guest case analysis by DePauw IEB team member, Marko Mavrovic, concerns a controversial practice at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington.

Evergreen College created the “Day of Absence,” a tradition to emphasize the lack of inclusion of people of color on campus. Students and staff members of color would leave campus for the day to emphasize their importance to the university. In 2017, however, the self-segregation of people of color shifted to an encouraged segregation of white people. The event organizers requested that white members of the university remove themselves from campus for the day. This was to show solidarity with minority students and to dismantle white supremacy by having whites relinquish control of white dominated spaces. Understandably, some were not pleased with this request. One of whom was Professor Bret Weinstein, who wrote in emails that the request was a “show of force” and an “act of exclusion” directed towards white students, something that would promote the opposite of an inclusive university.

Moral Dilemma: There are several moral dilemmas in this case, but the main dilemma is whether the goal of an inclusive campus environment justifies exclusionary, albeit temporary, practices against one race of people. The issue of free speech constitutes another, minor moral dilemma.

Motivations for the 2017 Day of Absence: The case highlights that the request for white members of the university to leave campus was done in part so that whites could relinquish their control of white-dominated spaces. Presumably, an additional motivation or justification for this request was a desire to have white students and faculty endure the feeling of exclusion that many marginalized peoples and ethnic minorities experience during their lifetime.

Day of Absence is not the only means – and may not even be the best means – of achieving the desired end. If the goal is to integrate historically underrepresented people or racial and ethnic minorities into the wider community, it seems a day of segregation is not the best way of achieving that goal. Asking white faculty and students to leave simply because they are white is not the means by which a community is going to become fully integrated.

There are other and possibly better ways of addressing this lack of inclusivity. Why is it important to understand that alternatives exist? Because opponents of Weinstein accused him of racism and being against the efforts to make a more inclusive environment simply because he was protesting the Day of Absence. Weinstein was not protesting the goal, he was protesting this specific way in which was the school sought to achieve the goal. Even the previous incarnation of Evergreen’s Day of Absence seems preferable to the 2017 versions because a group of students willingly removed themselves from campus to illustrate their importance to the university. Asking and encouraging other people – based solely on their skin color – to leave campus is detrimental to that goal.  One example of the numerous alternatives to address the so-called equity gaps would be hold a forum in which historically underrepresented people or racial and ethnic minorities air their grievances and the campus community engages in actual, active dialogue to come to a collaborative solution. Another alternative is a course on historical marginalization, so that students are aware of societal ills of the past and how they inform the present. However, the presence of alternative means does not itself make the Day of Absence impermissible. Such a principle would be hard to defend. One would have to demonstrate that the means work against achieving the desired ends.

The Illogical Nature of the Day of Absence: It may be worth stating the obvious: inclusion by exclusion is logically contradictory. The expressed goal of Evergreen’s Day of Absence is to emphasize the lack of inclusion of people of color and address the “equity gaps” of the school’s community. But it is important to remember that words have meaning. The adjective “inclusive” refers to not excluding any section of society or party involved in something. Asking or encouraging white students to leave campus, as the Day of Absence did in 2017, is an act of exclusion. It is the opposite of inclusion. It is akin to saying Addition by Subtraction. P and not P. While this argument focuses the logic of the linguistics, the contradiction illustrates how asking certain people to leave campus is not a viable way of ensuring all people are integrated on campus.

A Temporary, Not Permanent Measure: One way of responding to concern that the Day of Absence is “an act of exclusion” is to point out this is a temporary and unenforceable measure. It is not a permanent demand of the segregation of white people and people of color. It is rather a demonstration to foster some reflection and create empathy for the “inclusivity” cause. Yet it is more than reasonable to take a principled stance against any act of exclusion based on immutable characteristics of a person, regardless if the act is temporary, unenforceable, or exhibitionist in nature.

Freedom of Speech? While I maintain that freedom of speech is not a main focus of this case, the case does invite further consideration of it. Weinstein expressed his thoughts on the matter and he should be able to do so as he is a member of the university community. Actions that affect the community of which one is a part should allow for opinions of support or disapproval. Just as Weinstein should be permitted to protest the Day of Absence, we believe that the students that disagree with him should be able protest his expressed opinion. But those students should not be violent or prevent him from expressing his opinion, (i.e. threatening him, barricading his office, searching for his personal spaces); doing so would be a limitation of free speech.

— Marko Mavrovic

Posted on

2018-2019 IEB Case 10: Poverty in Paradise

The following guest analysis is from DePauw University Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl team member, Marko Mavrovic. If you or your team would like to author a guest analysis on either an IEB or NHSEB case, we’d be pleased to share it. Scroll down to review which cases have already been covered, and email matt (at) mattdeaton.com to confirm the submission details. And thanks for leading the guest analysis charge, Marko!

Credit CNN image

Criminal individuals and corporations utilize the secrecy and fiscal leniency of small island tax haven nations to store their illegally-obtained assets. Some of these assets have been gleaned from developing countries via various means. Given this, the connection between tax haven nations and the further impoverishment of developing countries warrants closer inspection.

What is the Connection? Developing countries receive official development assistance (ODA), which is foreign government aid designed to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries. Despite receiving an estimated $1.3 trillion in ODA from developed countries in 2012, developing countries saw nearly triple that amount flow out in the same year, indicating that the already impoverished developing countries are losing money. One of many sources of this outflow is unrecorded and usually illegal “capital flight.”

Capital flight refers to when money or assets of its citizens/residents, assets that would be subject to taxes, flows out rapidly from a country. Foreign and domestic corporations that contribute to capital flight use a practice known as “trade misinvoicing” to evade taxes, launder money, and circumvent restrictions on capital. Money laundering refers the process of concealing illicit money by ostensibly “transforming” it into legitimate assets. Often these corporations and individuals house their illicit assets in tax haven countries, such as the British Virgin Islands.

Tax havens are characterized by lax domestic policies and sometimes a lack of transparency. It is asserted that this illegal capital flight would be unable to occur without tax havens.  Tax haven countries, due to their domestic tax policies, may inadvertently be contributing to the massive outflow of money from developing countries and incentivizing financial criminality. Herein lies the main moral dilemma: Due to their indirect but adverse effect on developing countries, tax haven nations may be unethical.

There is nothing inherently morally bad about the existence of countries with lax domestic tax policies. While the criminal corporations and individuals utilize the tax havens for their illicit assets, the tax havens themselves are not criminal nor exclusively used by criminals. It is simply the country exercising their sovereignty over domestic policies. However, these tax havens are portrayed in such way that makes it appear as though they are integral to the illegal capital flight, yet the criminal act has already occurred prior to the assets arrival in whatever bank in Guam, Isle of Man, Bahamas etc. Tax havens are not a necessary feature of the illegal capital flight. If tax havens did not exist, deliberate misreporting of capital would likely still take place. Money laundering would still take place, too. In fact, money laundering occurs within countries when illegal assets are funneled  into legitimate  businesses. Capital flight from developing countries would also still take place as many criminals funnel the assets back into their home country,  too.

There is no direct connection between the continued impoverishment of developing countries and the existence of tax havens. The connection is indirect. Moreover, tax havens do not contribute to the outflow of money from developing countries. Some may argue that tax havens are incentivizing financial criminality, but they are not. They are merely incentivizing the movement of capital to their country by possessing tax rates that comparatively lower that than of the country in which the capital currently resides. Tax haven nations themselves are not moving money from developing countries, they are not mandating debt or interest payments, they are not repatriating back home investments made in developing countries, and they are not “reporting false prices on their trade invoices.” All of these actions are the main contributors to the extremely high capital outflow experienced made by other agents. The attention should instead be placed on those who engage in trade misinvoicing, money laundering, and other illegal activity that is detrimental to the development of developing countries.

Do individuals and corporations have a moral obligation to pay taxes in the country of their citizenship? In many cases, it is not criminals but law-abiding individuals who move their assets to tax havens. In doing so, they fail to contribute to the country of which they are a citizen and the country in which they made their money. Yet it is a rather common occurrence for a citizen of one country to move or spend their money in another country. International tourists do this all of the time! This movement of capital is a product of a more interconnected world in a time where travel is easier and national borders are more permeable to the movement of people and goods. This can and should be taken advantage of on the basis that individuals should have personal financial liberty. But the argument can be made that this “principle” of personal liberty does not outweigh a greater obligation to assist one’s own country (via the payment of taxes), especially if that individual is reaping the benefits of the tax revenue (i.e. infrastructure, education, healthcare, etc.)

Is It morally permissible for tax havens to have such low taxes? As argued above, tax haven nations are simply exercising their sovereignty over domestic affairs when they develop a tax policy. It can be argued, too, that a country’s first and primary obligation is to welfare of their own people. Considerations of the effect of their policies on other nations should only be accounted for after the best interests or desires of the nation are met, if accounted for at all. Many tax havens have democratic regimes, which reinforces, at least ideally, the notion that these tax policies are being developed in the interest of the people.

Ethical Obligations in International Relations: As it pertains to this case, some could argue that there are a few obligations of countries when interacting with other countries. The first is that developed countries have an obligation to assist the development of developing countries. This obligation is due in part because of abundance of resources of developed countries. Another reason is that the stability of developing countries, which likely can only be achieved by the generosity or aid of developed countries, is beneficial to all countries.

The second obligation is to avoid infringing upon the sovereignty of other nations except for in extraordinary circumstances. For example, demanding that a tax haven nation change its tax policy would constitute a violation of a country’s sovereignty. But there are situations in which that infringement may be permissible, such as when country A poses an imminent and real threat to the national security of country B. If the argument can be made that tax havens are directly threatening the national security of a developing country because of their policies, it may be enough to compel tax havens to no longer exist.

— Marko Mavrovic

Posted on

2018-2019 NHSEB Case 8: Data Violence

According to case #12, software sometimes commits some pretty cringeworthy errors, such as Google tagging photos of African-Americans as gorillas (yikes…), or “airport body scanners flagging transgender bodies as threats” (double yikes…), or translation software replacing intentionally gender-neutral terms with gender-specific terms.

body scan machine, credit AOL

One pragmatic reason for programmers to correct and prevent such mistakes is that if customers can’t trust their software, they’ll buy and use software that they can.

But apart from the financial incentive, there’s also a moral obligation to correct such errors to the extent they cause vulnerable groups undeserved, avoidable harm.

Tagging African-Americas as gorillas triggers our moral radar not only because it’s a gross program error, but because African-Americans are sometimes demeaned as sub-human, and the program mistake exposes and deepens that wound. While one person might laugh it off, another might find it devastating.

In the case of the body scanner flagging a transgender person as a threat, I can only imagine the embarrassment this could cause, especially if the machine set off alarms or otherwise caused a scene. Whether we can fully understand why a person would want to modify their bodies in a gender altering way, basic decency suggests tweaks to the scanners and discreet handling of alarms. Hopefully a transgender person being screened in the name of passenger safety could overlook the inconvenience if it’s carried out tactfully, and especially if software improvements are underway.

And in the case of translation software replacing gender-neutral terms with gender-specific terms, if an author has gone to the trouble to gender neutralize their writing, translation software that misses that nuance would seem not only bad (translations are useful only to the extent they precisely convey author intent), but callous to the plight of people who reject gender assignment. Some people’s dignity turns on not being labeled he or she, and respecting that request seems easy and harmless enough. Even easier and more harmless — respecting the intent of authors who go to the trouble to use gender-neutral language.

Ultimately, appreciating the argument above requires some degree of sensitivity to and empathy with the plight of the impacted groups. As a straight, white male, I can only imagine how these errors could ruin a person’s week. But when I do imagine, I see a transgender teenager, or an elderly black man, or any already vulnerable person suffering an unnecessary, avoidable harm. I think about how a person could feel alienated and discounted already, and how these errors could compound their suffering. If the happiness of persons matters, it seems pretty clear programmers should go to the trouble to root out errors like those mentioned in case #12, and to take steps to prevent them in the first place.

Posted on

Ethics in a Nutshell: An Intro for Ethics Bowlers Third Edition (now with YouTube lectures)

An October, 2018 revision to my classic primer for ethics bowlers — now updated with video lectures on each of the chapters — is available in PDF on our Resources page and and via direct link here. Used by ethics bowl teams from coast to coast, it’s accessible, concise (only 60 pages), and contains all the philosophical ethics essentials: differences between morality and psychology/legality, how to build and analyze arguments by analogy, the four dominant ethics theories, the (legit, essential) role of our moral intuitions, and much more.

For class and other non-ethics bowl purposes, find the revised and expanded paperback edition at Amazon for less than $10 here. It’s similar to this 3rd ethics bowler edition, with several sections rewritten for clarity and impact, formatted for fewer words per page, lecture notes on each chapter at the end, and with a beautiful cover by ethics bowl supporter and artist, Ashley Addair.

But for ethics bowl-related purposes, the PDF version hosted here at EthicsBowl.org is completely free – my gift to the ethics bowl community. Print it, email it, host it on your team’s website – whatever you like.

Visit EthicsinaNutshell.org for the vids, sample reflection questions, sample syllabi and other resources.

Hoping you and your team find Nutshell useful, and special thanks to all the volunteers who helped improve editions 1 and 2,
Matt

Posted on

2018-2019 NHSEB Case 8: De-Extinction

Case 8 considers whether scientists should bring back extinct species, which could range from tyrannical T-Rexes to docile dodo birds. The techniques aren’t quite there, but are getting better. Should de-extinction experiments continue, and when a breakthrough inevitably occurs, should there be any limits on whether, in which cases or how de-extinction is used?

Mad scientist Justin, who does NOT recommend de-extinction

Here’s some guest analysis from my 10-year-old son, Justin.

“You should not bring back species from the past. As it states in the passage, ‘Many factors brought about the extinction of a given species, why should we intervene artificially to reverse the procedure?’ If you focused on just bringing them back, then it would cause problems such as throwing off the ecosystem. Also, the bucardo was revived, but only for a few seconds. It then died because of organ failure. So the science isn’t very effective.

I believe that they are just spending many thousands of dollars on trying to bring back extinct species. When you would have to bring back two, and if you were very serious about the bucardo being a thriving species, then you would probably have to set up hundreds of facilities all around of America.

So instead you should save the endangered instead of bringing back the extinct. Comment if you agree or disagree and why.”

Thank you, Justin! It sounds like you’re most concerned about resources being spent on something that may or may not work, which might be better spent saving endangered species before they’re gone.

What are your or your team’s thoughts on this case? To comment, click the article title, scroll down towards the bottom, and submit. Justin appreciates and looks forward to your ideas.

Posted on

2018-2019 NHSEB Case 9: Picnic Nitpick

Randy notices 7-year-old Lisa dominating at the chess table. However, it’s quickly apparent that she’s no prodigy, but a hustler – moving pieces when no one is looking, making up rules to her advantage, and as a result winning the adulation of adult spectators unfamiliar with the game. He wonders whether to intervene, and if so, how.

My cutie pie Emily, who would never cheat at chess…

On the one hand, no money is at stake, and Randy doesn’t know anyone at this community picnic. It’s not like Lisa’s his niece or it’s his own children being unfairly beaten. On the other hand, there at least three things wrong with what’s happening.

First the losing kids are probably getting their feelings hurt. Some may be able to brush it off, but others may be in tears. We don’t know from the case details, but to the extent Lisa’s victims are visibly distraught, this would give Randy reason to say something.

Second, the longer Lisa gets away with her trickery, the more likely she’ll develop a deceptive, cheating personality, which may lead her to inflict future harms. Chess cheating today could lead to investment fraud tomorrow… Yet an effective correction could prove a pivotal moment in the development of a legendarily virtuous character – “Lisa the Just,” the philosophers would call her…

And third, not only are the kids being tricked, but so are the spectators. They wouldn’t praise Lisa if they knew she was cheating, and so are being deceived in a way that’s probably amplifying the embarrassment of the losers, as well as reinforcing Lisa’s propensity to deceive in the future.

Something should be done, and since Randy is the only person there besides Lisa who truly understands chess, he’s the guy to do it. But what?

Given that Lisa is only 7, his approach needs to be gentle. Were Lisa 30, Randy could be more direct. A 30-year-old could better handle directness emotionally, and even if they couldn’t, would be more blameworthy for their actions. Our capacities for reflection and moral reasoning aren’t fully developed when we’re young – this is why we have a juvenile criminal justice system with less harsh punishments for offenders under 18. Lisa has some understanding that what she’s doing is wrong. But at 7, she’s less sensitive to the impact of her actions on her peers, doesn’t fully appreciate why deception is wrong, or comprehend how her actions today will mold her character of tomorrow.

So Randy might simply say, “I’m sorry young lady, but a player only has to say ‘check’ when they’re attacking their opponent’s king. Being aware of whether your queen is in danger is each player’s responsibility – no verbal warning required.”

Or, “Wasn’t it the case that this rook was actually on this square? The wind must have slid it over.”

Randy might even use the opportunity to coach. Lisa obviously has the interest and some skill, and would probably prefer to win legitimately if she could.

“Might I suggest castling? Oh, you don’t know how to castle? Here, let me show you – this move helps protect your king, and frees your rook to go on the offensive.”

Whether Lisa is receptive to any of this will likely depend on the reasons driving her behavior. Maybe an older sibling tends to cheat her at the chess table, and she’s simply modeling their behavior. Or maybe the innocent-looking kids she’s beating were bullying her earlier, and she’s simply putting them in their place.

But whatever her motives, and whatever her response, something needs to be done, and the power disparity between Randy and Lisa (plus the fact that he’s a stranger) rule out a heavy-handed approach. Were his attempts to mold her in a more honest direction ineffective, Randy might consider consoling the kids she’s defeating, or offering to coach them.

Posted on

Ethics Bowl and Democratic Deliberation

After more than six months of planning, in March of 2018 Bob and Joanne Ladenson moderated an “Ethics Bowl and Democratic Deliberation” panel discussion at the annual Association for Practical and Professional Ethics conference in Chicago. I was honored to be invited to chronicle that event.

Bob introducing the panel

Alluding to the devolving state of American civil discourse, Bob opened by remarking that the session “has a special urgency and immediacy” in 2018, a time when personal insults and disregard for history and facts have become routine at the highest levels. How did we get here?

Panelist Paula McAvoy from the University of Wisconsin argued that while American politics has always involved mudslinging, the watershed moment marking the beginning of the current decline was passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This empowered the federal government to more forcefully intervene on the behalf of minorities, which disrupted the White-led status quo, undermining the gentlemen’s agreement the major parties had previously maintained, pushing Democrats further to the left and Republicans further to the right.

Dr. McAvoy went on to argue that growing income inequalities since the 80s exacerbated middle-class insecurity, which has driven resentment towards immigrants and racial tension.

In contrast, panelist Deborah Mower from the University of Mississippi offered the rise of political talk radio in the 90s, and its “valorization of righteous indignation” as a primary source of the current political environment. Not necessarily disagreeing, Dr. McAvoy added how Newt Gingrich led this approach initially via C-SPAN, positioning the Republicans as an “opposition party” with an uncompromising approach.

On ethics bowl as a partial antidote, Dr. McAvoy called the events “one of the best forms of ethics education I’ve ever seen,” and Dr. Mower touted how ethics bowl incentivizes engagement with people of opposing views both during preparation (so teams can come to an internal consensus), and during competition (to ensure a good score).

With benefits not limited to the competitors, Dr. Mower explained an innovative way her Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl team has expanded its influence – a “Great Debate” mock bowl that invited faculty, the broader student population, and even the local community to watch her team debate Mississippi’s celebration of April as Confederate Heritage Month. The crowd got an opportunity to witness spirited, yet respectful and intelligent discussion of a very controversial issue, and the team plans to hold a second event of the same sort, this time debating whether “the standard of consent for sexual relations should be an affirmative yes.”

Providing the perspective of an educator and bowl enthusiast at a school with a large Hispanic population, panelist Scott Dick, a teacher and ethics bowl coach from Chicago’s Pritzker College Prep High, explained some of the disadvantages underprivileged schools face. While some enjoy a dedicated philosophy class, his ethics team is only able to meet once per week, a problem especially common in public schools across the country.

On how to handle the sometimes silly and extreme views high school students entertain, such as eating the poor to stave off poverty, Mr. Dick recommended empathy and patience. “You have to engage at their level and play at their level.”

A panelist adding additional local context was Bart Schultz, author, longtime ethics bowl supporter, Senior Lecturer in the Humanities, and Executive Director of the Civic Knowledge Project at the University of Chicago. Among the programs Mr. Schultz oversees is Winning Words in which students lead discussions at south side Chicago inner city schools on philosophical topics including applied ethics. (For background on Mr. Shultz’s work on The New Chicago School of Philosophy click here.)

Mr. Schultz praised former Chicago Alderman Leon Despres for his ability to consistently discuss tough issues with respect and precision, and cited the work of Danielle Allen in asking how the ethics bowl format might be modified to even more effectively model and encourage respectful deliberation. One audience member suggested using questions that more intentionally steer teams in morally enlightening and fruitful directions.

With opening remarks from each of the panelists on the table, the group welcomed a friendly critique from an audience member that ethics bowls, with their emphasis on thoroughly appreciating various angles, may be creating “fence sitters” as opposed to committed advocates. The worry is that when citizens are aware of just how complex tough issues are, they’ll be less likely to confidently act.

Dr. McAvoy lent some support to the critique by citing studies that have shown that when citizens are presented with competing messages on an issue, voting rates actually decrease. Mr. Schultz agreed that “paralysis by analysis” could indeed be one result of learning too much about an issue once believed simple and clear.

However, Dr. Mower responded by arguing that activism and enlightenment are not mutually exclusive – that you can be a passionate activist and civil, thoughtful. And Mr. Dick argued that regardless of how thoroughly his high school ethics bowl team covered a given issue, his students never had a problem choosing and confidently arguing for a particular stance.

IEB organizer and former competitor Rachel Green offered a related worry: “Might ethics bowl suggest all views are equally good?”

Dr. Mower explained that it’s never the ethics bowl community’s intent to suggest ethics is a subjective matter, though ethics professors can attest that this is a common early response from students sometimes overwhelmed by competing, and seemingly equally strong positions for the first time.

Greg Wright, a professor and ethics bowl enthusiast from Utah, shared a specific issue he’d faced in teaching applied ethics generally – that of religious students sometimes being wary of philosophical ethics. It was suggested that Notre Dame philosopher Robert Audi’s basic argument – that Christ’s Golden Rule gives us good reason to think through public policy questions using reasons anyone can appreciate, regardless of their faith or lack thereof – is sometimes convincing, and worth giving a try.

Audi’s argument is essentially that if we desire to treat others as we would like to be treated, then we can’t base our laws on religious reasons alone. Were we to find ourselves in the religious minority, we wouldn’t want to be coerced by laws according to a faith we did not share. Studying philosophical ethics, and doing ethics bowl, are therefore ways to develop the capacity to reason through tough issues from a perspective anyone can appreciate, regardless of their faith or lack thereof.

Last, longtime IEB coach and bowl organizer Pat Croskery added commentary on ethics bowl’s contrast with debate – how he finds it reassuring that teams are able to acknowledge, absorb and reframe other teams’ positions, indicating genuine engagement and understanding, and providing hope for America’s political future, and for ethics bowl’s role in leading us in a more civil direction.

Posted on

The Case Summary Matrix

Depending on your bowl organizer’s tastes, your team may need to prepare to discuss up to fifteen cases. That’s a lot of material – a lot of philosophical twists and turns, too.

One way to make it more manageable for your team is to develop a case summary matrix.

Customizing is allowed, but the basic idea is for each case to have a concise snapshot of:

  • Basic details (who, what, when, where, why)
  • Moral considerations (the key ones, from different directions)
  • The team’s view (in a nutshell, how they evaluated the case – answered the key study questions)

Getting that much on paper will make case coverage more manageable. But for an even more robust and complete matrix consider adding:

  • A possible objection (how someone might critique your team’s view)
  • A reply to that objection
  • Bonus points (anything relevant not included already, which may or may not arise during the judges’ Q&A portion)

If you’re a more heavy-handed coach, you can develop this matrix for your team. Or if, like me, you prefer to encourage your team to develop their own views, you can simply draw a blank table of the matrix on the board, fill in one or two as examples, and ask particular students fill in the rest.

This is a good way to get a team on the same page when the bowl is looming. But could also be used early in the season, and then revised as your bowl prep sessions play out.

Here’s a partially completed example that you’re welcome to download and edit, which I used with my own ethics bowl team during the 2017-2018 season. Enjoy!

Posted on

Use Ethical Theory?

Some coaches take for granted that if their team understands Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Care Ethics or some other ethical theory well enough to apply it, they should – the judges are sure to be impressed.

But there’s been backlash from bowl enthusiasts, judges among them, who worry sometimes ethics bowl becomes ethical theory bowl.

Teams get hung up on a favored theory and miss nuances a common-sense moral analysis would catch. Plus, no theory is immune from criticism, and many judges have their favorites. You train your team to apply consequentialism, then face a panel of deontologist judges! Not good.

This actually came up during a recent conversation with ethics bowl creator, Bob Ladenson.

 

Matt: Bob, you mentioned how witnessing so many ethics bowls has changed your views on moral philosophy.

Bob: Yes, I have much more openness and wiliness to consider views that are very different than my intellectual instincts tend to take me to.

An example is you know how in a match very often teams will approach an issue by examining it from the perspective of various ethical theories? At our summer ethics bowl workshop meetings this often receives strong criticism from philosophy professors who consider this a sort of shopping list, formulaic approach to ethics. And that’s the way I felt in the beginning – I thought it was kind of naïve what the students were doing.

But over the years I’ve come to appreciate what the students were doing, and often use that approach myself, and am much more open to looking at things from the perspective of a philosophy that might have fundamental issues.

Afterwards Bob shared a recent email exchange that helped clarify his view.

Bob: I regard major philosophical theories of ethics as immensely important conceptual resources for thinking about controversial, highly viewpoint dependent, hard to resolve ethical issues.  I don’t think though that they’re needed in each and every such case…

Truth to tell, however, I still don’t have a clearly worked out position with which I’m satisfied.  Temperamentally, like John Dewey, I’m partial to philosophical analyses that emphasize underlying commonalities in seemingly divergent viewpoints.

Thus… I stress that the attributes of open mindedness, readiness to engage in meaningful conversation about controversial ethical issues, and deliberative thoughtfulness, which all are indispensable for rigorous analytical thinking in applied ethics likewise qualify as virtues of ethical discourse.

 

Bob’s view seems to be that analyzing cases through the lens of ethical theory can be illuminating, but that this isn’t necessary. It’s far more important that your team approach the cases with the right attitude: “open mindedness, readiness to engage in meaningful conversation about controversial ethical issues, and deliberative thoughtfulness.”

I would tend to agree. But bottom line, will using ethical theory more likely help or harm your team come bowl day?

From my experience, using theory during bowl prep is almost always helpful, but whether your team should explicitly employ Utilitarianism or Feminist Care Ethics during the bowl itself depends on how they’re prepared to use them.

I’ve seen teams namedrop Kant without explaining how the Categorical Imperative works or clearly applying it to the case. This made them appear less competent than had they avoided Kantianism in the first place. I’ve also seen teams offer conflicting analyses of the same case from the perspective of multiple theories, with no suggestions on how to resolve the tension. Judges were visibly unimpressed.

Analyzing cases from the perspective of ethical theories during bowl prep can be a great way to clarify the morally relevant considerations, as well as what’s at stake and most important. This is because ethical theories are really just amplifications and logical defenses of moral considerations we already intuitively endorse.

  • Kantianism: rational consistency and respect for persons
  • Consequentialism/Utilitarianism: consequences/happiness
  • Feminist Care Ethics: the importance of relational ties, and how we should usually prioritize the interests of loved ones
  • Virtue Ethics: the relevance of how our actions reveal and shape our character

People naturally apply these same reasons to moral questions, and so will your team. The benefit of employing ethical theory during bowl prep is that this can help clarify, order and validate your team’s moral intuitions, which can sharpen and strengthen the arguments they present at the bowl.

If your team’s really good, they can even namedrop old Kant. Just make sure they’re ready to illustrate that universalizability test during the judges Q&A, should one of them request it.

But don’t take my word for it. What’s been your experience with ethical theory and ethics bowl? Overall helpful or harmful?

Posted on

Coaching Between Rounds

As a high school ethics bowl coach, I’ve found that it’s between rounds one and two, and two and three, that a team will be most eager for and receptive to feedback – more malleable and open to modifying their approach. Once you get past round two, some fall into tacit roles, and their question response pattern becomes difficult to adjust.

Below is an example of feedback I provided my team between rounds 1 and 2 during a recent bowl in Tennessee. Notice how I emphasized both what they were doing well, and opportunities for improvement.

Last, know that sometimes no matter how clearly you convey your suggestions, teams will still forget to consider and respond to a possible objection, continue to say, “In our opinion…” and continue to go overboard in thanking the judges. All you can do is coach. How well the respond is largely on them.