Posts

Posted on

Announcing the 2024 Pan American Ethics Olympiad!

A new Ethics competition, hosted by the Modus Ponens Institute, will be held in March 2024. The Western competition will be on the 10th of March, and the Eastern competition will be on March 30th. The Pan American Final will be held on April 14th.

This event is unique for a few reasons: first, it has an exciting International competition students can attend if they place in the top positions at the National tournament. Also, all judges have extensive background in either Philosophy or a related field of study, or a history of Ethics Olympiad judging. They will provide extensive feedback each round, which will be invaluable for your improvement throughout the rounds!

Furthermore, the competition emphasizes the use of ethical theories to ground arguments. Understanding the key theories, utilitarianism, some sort of deontology (the founding father being Emmanuel Kant), care ethics, virtue ethics, and perhaps Rawlsian justice could all be utilized to build your positions.

You can find additional info at the Modus Ponens Institute webpage, or you can get in touch with the organizers at panamethics@modusponensinstitute.com. They will release the cases to you, and offer training if you desire it, once you’ve registered for the competition.

Finally, if you have any financial difficulty paying for the team fee ($180 Canadian dollars), or for pre-tournament coaching, you can simply ask via email for a scholarship, and access will be granted.

Posted on

2023-2024 NHSEB Regional Cases 12 Sartorial Shuffle, 15 Miners, Not Minors, and 16 Is Whatney Worth It? Study Guides

Happy Martin Luther King Jr. Day! We’re enjoying it with a little snow here in East Tennessee – have sleds tied to the back of the family 4-wheeler ready to go. Hoping you’re staying cozy wherever you find yourself.

Coming into the home stretch of NHSEB regionals, here are three additional study guides from Coach Michael. His team will be participating in the Oregon HSEB February 3rd and 4th at Portland State.

Special kudos to Michael and team for being willing to share these with the full Ethics Bowl community, including teams they’ll go up against in a few weeks. Now that’s the spirit of Ethics Bowl!

Posted on

CheatBot or SuperTutor? ChatGPT for Ethics Bowl Zoom Debrief

This past Sunday, a small group of Ethics Bowl organizers, coaches and enthusiasts met for an informal, unofficial discussion on how ChatGPT and other generative AI tools might be used for Ethics Bowl. The purpose wasn’t to settle much of anything, but to inspire further discussion at the upcoming NHSEB regionals and nationals, as well as IEB nationals.

Why? Teams are surely using it. And given that Ethics Bowl participants, coaches, judges, moderators, organizers, their families and fans are among the most thoughtful people in the world, inviting them into a collective discussion on how to properly incorporate this technology seems a no-brainer. It’s an ethics question about Ethics Bowl – doesn’t get much more relevant than that. If you agree, please share this article and/or the accompanying recording, and report back any and all ideas worth sharing. Some upshots:

  • How to Best Leverage AI for Ethics Bowl Prep: Think of it as a conversation partner, tutor, rough draft-generator and/or judge/opposing team simulator. Understand its limitations. Fact check. Reason check. Moral blind spot check. Bias check. It’s a strong supplement to, but not a replacement for, human wisdom and deliberation. And it performs best when guided with insightful follow-ups.
  • On Worries that a Team Might Use AI to Write a Presentation Script: Using ChatGPT for Ethics Bowl prep isn’t analogous to asking it to do your homework because a) teams need to come to a consensus prior to the event (and it’s unlikely an entire team would agree to memorize and regurgitate a chatbot’s script), and b) due to EB’s live, interactive nature, any team overly reliant on an AI script would be embarrassingly exposed during commentary response and judge Q&A. Also, bowlers are a special self-selected subgroup of the population, far less likely to do anything that might constitute cheating than your average student (most of whom are also unlikely to cheat, but we educators are often paranoid about that).
  • Steps Ethics Bowl Leaders Can Take: While a team might get away with memorizing an eloquent opening presentation script written for them by a chatbot (the risk is low, but one could), this can be partially mitigated by adjusting score sheets to increase the relative weighting of the commentary, commentary response and judge Q&A portions. (Rules committees, steering committees, other leaders – please give this additional thought – tweaking rubrics might help as well.)
  • Steps Ethics Bowl Coaches Can Take: The broader community of Ethics Bowl coaches (including Ethics Olympiad, John Stuart Mill Cup, etc. coaches) can and should work together to test, share and recommend AI prompts and techniques that produce the highest quality outputs. They should also remind students of the virtues of democratic deliberation and the risks of intellectual laziness. Consider EthicsBowl.org one place to share such insights.
  • Steps Case Committees Can Take: Since generative AI seems more effective at scripting responses on cases about real world events (with published editorials for the AI to scan), case writing committees should consider using more fictitious scenarios or putting twists on real world cases (focusing on some interpersonal moral tension within the broader context of a real world issue). This may be unnecessary, but definitely deserves additional thought.

There was more – please watch the video when you have time. But one thing I argued is that AI can serve as an equalizer, connecting all teams (both advantaged and disadvantaged) with an on-demand tutor with an unmatched knowledge base and inexhaustible stamina. Students with the time and interest can learn pretty much anything, including philosophical ethics, so long as they know how to ask good questions. Background knowledge definitely helps, and learning will be slower when the topic is new. But I’m very optimistic about AI’s potential for education.

Special thanks to Michael Andersen for the idea, the planning and co-hosting, as well as to coaches Dick Lesicko, Angela Vahsholtz-Andersen and Chris Ng (thanks also, Chris, for your notes which helped with this article), organizers Jeanine DeLay and Greg Bock for your preparation, attendance and engagement. And apologies to Gabe Kahn, who gets credit for trying to attend! Next time I’ll more closely monitor the Zoom host notifications…

Posted on

2023-2024 NHSEB Regional Cases 2: Doomsday Deterrence & 10 Storming the Barnes Study Guides

Happy New Year! While Rhode Island, Tyler, Texas (where I teach ethics online) and Virginia held their regional bowls in November or December, everyone else – from Washington D.C. to Washington state, California to the Carolinas – is still prepping for theirs.

So, for teams, coaches and dedicated judges, here are two additional study guides from all-star coach Michael Andersen. Enjoy!

Posted on

AI and Ethics Bowl Round 2: ChatGPT Wrote Our Presentation?

Fast, free and virtually undetectable, ChatGPT offers a tempting combination of ease and stealth. While it can be used as an on demand, universal tutor for the ambitiously inquisitive, it can also serve a secret substitute thinker for the time-pressed, disillusioned or simply unscrupulous.

The line between learning aid and cheatbot isn’t obvious. But there are clear cases. Ask it to help you understand Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion? Sure. Direct it to write a paper on Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion which you plan to submit as your original work? No.

Similar logic would seem to apply to Ethics Bowl. Enthusiastic, dedicated bowlers can expand their thinking after hours, engaging a tireless conversation partner with an unmatchable knowledge base, and they can do it without the fear of asking a stupid question or suggesting something taboo. On the other hand… a team could feed AI the case and discussion questions (ChatGPT now has direct access to the internet – just provide a hyperlink to the case set), subcontract every bit of the analysis with the right prompts (see the experiments at the end of the attached article), memorize and regurgitate a received view, and as a result learn and grow very little. Such a team might score well on their initial presentation, but would risk an embarrassing exposure during judge Q&A. Maybe judge interaction will be our primary weapon for combating chatbot abuse. But rest assured that in this season’s bowls, many, many teams will have used ChatGPT and services like it. It is therefore incumbent upon the Ethics Bowl community to think hard (and fast) about appropriate guidelines, and to share them as a baseline to be refined as soon as possible. Even if imperfect, almost any guidance would be preferable to silence, for silence implies anything goes.

Back in April, we invited ChatGPT itself to write this article on the risks and promise of using it for Ethics Bowl prep. Today, naturally intelligent organic person Michael Andersen adds to the discussion with the below article. Organizers, judges, coaches: if you’re not convinced this is a risk (an AI drawback denier), click one of Michael’s experiments at the end of the article. Still not worried? I actually had second thoughts about publishing the prompts he used to guide the AI to provide a full presentation script. But the community needs to understand the tool’s power. Plus, if Gen X dinosaurs like Michael and myself can stumble our way through an AI conversation, the Gen Z tech wizards whom we work so hard to honorably mentor aren’t likely to learn anything new.

Last, if you have thoughts on acceptable use of AI for Ethics Bowl prep, please share them in a comment. We’re also considering some sort of video discussion in the near future – shoot me an email if you’d like to be included, and thanks to everyone in the community who’s taking this topic seriously.

Posted on

2023-2024 NHSEB Regional Case 11: A Monthly Subscription to Brutality Study Guide

There’s no shortage of morally questionable content on Netflix, and this season the esteemed NHSEB Case Committee decided to invite analysis of Dahmer, the streaming service’s second most-viewed show ever.

How to think it through? With Coach Michael Andersen’s study guide, of course, which happens to link to the below mental juice kickstarting TED talk on the ethics of true crime storytelling and consumption. Enjoy!

Posted on

2023-2024 NHSEB Regional Case 6: Well That’s Debatable Study Guide

Another stellar case analysis study guide from Coach Michael Andersen in Washington.

Matt’s super quick, unsolicited take on the open-closed question distinction offered in the case: no question is “closed” for the true philosopher. We might quickly dismiss certain claims and arguments with good reason. But any idea sincerely expressed deserves consideration. Though my open-mindedness is tested when a friend sends me flat earth videos…

Anyway, the guide is fantastic per usual – thank you, Michael! The link to SchoolofThought.org‘s “Rules of Civil Conversation” alone make it worth every team’s review. In fact, let’s highlight those rather nice rules below… Why isn’t Ethics Bowl partnering with these hilariously (“let’s avoid the apocalypse”? – ha!) good folks? I’m an instant fan.

Not as funny, but easier to read version.
Posted on

2023-2024 NHSEB Regional Cases 3: ‘Til Death Do My Part & 5: Tears of the Koroks Study Guides

Could shielding a loved one from a terrible truth be admirable? I would thinks so. But much would depend on the stakes, the relationship, and reasonable assumptions about what our beloved would or wouldn’t want to know.

Could abusing entities that don’t really matter be indirectly wrong out of concern for entities that do matter? Kant thought so. While torturing a cat (which lacks the power of autonomy, and therefore substantial moral value) might not be directly wrong on Kantian grounds, it would probably make a person more callous generally, and therefore more likely to harm human beings.

Such are the core issues in cases 3 and 5. But don’t take my or Kant’s word for it. Think them through for yourself! And do it like a pro using Coach Michael Andersen’s expert study guides.

Posted on

2023-2024 NHSEB Regional Case 14: A Phenotypic Prometheus? Study Guide & Analysis

Courtesy of co-authors and Ethics Bowl Coaches Michael Andersen and Hassan Eltelbany, a superb guide to lead your team through regional case 14 followed by an equally superb analysis.

Be sure to check out the brief news story sharing the Nash family’s motives and how they’re doing now. And before reading the analysis, consider thinking through the guide with your team.

Super special thanks to Michael and Hassan for leading by example!

Posted on

New Case Analysis Guide and Presentation Planner

Our friend Michael Andersen in Washington is at it again, meticulously crafting and gifting invaluable resources to the global Ethics Bowl community. I’ve never thought of you as an elf before, Michael. But your care and generosity, and your location several degrees north of Tennessee, are bringing that comparison to mind!

Andersen’s Step-by-Step Guide, adapted from Dustin Webster’s Coaching Manual, leads ethletes from first impressions and relevant facts, into key stakeholders’ perspectives, the values and interests they’re likely to emphasize. While the guide asks teams to name the central moral tension, it’s careful to marinate in analysis mode. Visualizing parties adjacent on the page, it invites teams to adopt a character and talk things through.

It’s the perfect lead-in to Andersen’s Presentation Planner – a strategic blueprint of exactly what a team intends to argue and who’s responsible for what. Settling who’s answering the moderator’s question, who’s justifying the team’s position and who’s handling the recap on paper is sure to reduce confusion, promote quality prep and make a team both feel and perform better come Bowl day.

We’ll soon post some of Michael’s regional NHSEB case study guides, and may have an analysis of case 14, “A Phenotypic Prometheus?” Michael may or may not be co-authoring with Portland State Philosophy grad student, assistant coach and rising rock star educator Hassan Eltelbany… But first, we’re proud to share this thorough, concise and clear analysis how-to, as well as two examples of the humbly titled “Minimum Presentation Plan.” Thank you from all of us, Michael! Please say hello to Santa!