Michael Andersen, Volunteer Ethics Bowl Coach and Philosophy Club Adviser at the Vancouver School of Arts & Academics in Washington State, generously agreed to share the below philosophy club agendas. But more than mere agendas, I’d consider them full mini-curriculum.
I’ve come across quite a few pre-college philosophy learning materials. But I know of none anywhere that match Michael’s mix of gravitas, thoroughness and engagement. Videos, visuals, links to further resources? These are best-in-class resources, folks.
So if you need ideas on how to take your own Philosophy, Ethics Bowl or Ethics Olympiad club to the next level, look no further. And thanks as always for sharing, Michael!
Earlier this week the first ever Tertiary Ethics Olympiad was hosted by Matthew Wills and team in Australia. I was honored to serve as a judge, and was supremely impressed with the quality of analyses and discussion. The results, shared by Matthew via email afterwards:
“[Australian National University, ANU] (Green) was awarded the Gold medal, ANU (White) the Silver medal and Monash University (Red) received the Bronze medal. Close behind and in order were; [University of Western Australia, UWA] (Aqua), UWA (Green), Monash University (Yellow), University of Wollongong (Blue), UQ (Orange), Curtin University (Black) and UQ (Plum). The following teams received honorable mentions from the judges; Curtin University (Black), ANU (White), Monash University (Red & Yellow), UWA (Aqua & Green), University of Wollongong (Blue) & UQ (Orange and Plum).”
Super congrats to Australian National University for winning both 1st and 2nd place! But thanks and congrats to all coaches and teams for making this first event possible. I know Matthew was thrilled to expand Ethics Olympiad to the collegiate level, and the broader Ethics Bowl community couldn’t be more proud.
Ever been in the middle of an Ethics Bowl round, heard a team or judge mention “Rawls” or the “Veil of Ignorance” and thought, “Who? What?”
Think of Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance (aka Original Position) thought experiment as an extension of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Kant’s Categorical Imperative as an extension of the Golden Rule. Neither equates to treating others the way they’d like to be treated. But thinking of them in these ways is smart because that’s how Rawls and Kant thought of them.
All three (Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative, Veil of Ignorance) share a commitment to treating like cases alike, and recognition that there’s nothing special about our perspective that privileges our personal interests. And despite the unnecessarily intimidating names, they’re basically ways to reduce bias by imagining ourselves in others’ shoes. That’s it – fancy names, but ultimately simple (and intuitively sound) concepts.
However, alluding to the Veil of Ignorance’s connections with related moral principles isn’t telling you how it works. For that, I offer brief clips from two of my audiobooks.
First, from the Involving Your Audience chapter of TheBest Public Speaking Book click here, and second, from the Third Parties chapter of Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell click here. Enjoy!
The 2022-2023 Regional NHSEB Regional Case Set went live Friday afternoon. Two cases that immediately caught my attention were #1, on the implications of Artificial Intelligences becoming conscious (Philosophy of Mind, anyone?), and #13, on a couple’s disagreement over how much risk to their Unborn Developing Human is too much.
In a nutshell, the mother is OK possibly catching COVID at work and lifting heavy stuff at home, whereas the father wants her to telework when a coworker has tested positive and has volunteered to cover the strenuous household chores. The question becomes, just how much weight should the father’s input carry?
It’s not perfect. For one, the title, “Our Baby, My Body” is awfully close to “My Body, My Choice,” steering analysis toward a predetermined conclusion. “Dismissing a Father’s Love” would have been just as bad in the other direction. A more neutral (but boring) alternative: “Properly Balancing Parental Autonomy During Pregnancy.”
However, I’m just glad it’s included at all, and optimistic that Ethics Bowl coaches, teams and judges won’t be inappropriately swayed by the title’s (surely unintentional) framing. Readers of the blog know that abortion is one of my favorite ethical issues, and that I’ve been encouraging case committees to include abortion cases for some time. So THANK YOU NHSEB Case Committee. #13 is a gentle, classy way to broach abortion ethics, and to test the waters for more direct discussions in the future.
In fact, let’s test the waters right here. Download the official set from NHSEB.unc.edu (click the Cases link at the top). But here’s #13 in full, all credit to the original authors. If you’re brave enough to share your initial thoughts, that’s what that Leave a Reply section is for (appears when you open articles individually).
2022-2023 NHSEB Regional Case #13. “Our Baby, My Body” [or “Properly Balancing Parental Autonomy During Pregnancy”]
Tom and Melinda are about to have a baby together. They are both committed to raising the child together as a family, and they have made many of the decisions about how they’re going to raise the child as a team. Recently, though, Melinda has been engaging in activities that Tom thinks are unnecessarily risky for the health of their future child. She has continued going into work instead of working from home when her employees have reported they are sick with COVID-19. Tom has mentioned that the most recent information shows that there are risks for the pregnancy if Melinda catches COVID-19, including a pre-term birth or stillbirth. She also continues to exert herself physically more than Tom thinks is necessary for her or healthy for the baby.
Tom believes that, since he is an equal partner in raising the child, he should have an equal say in how Melinda acts when it comes to the health of the child. He does not think it is unfair of him to tell Melinda that she needs to work from home when her co-workers are sick, or to insist that she stop exerting herself around the house and let him do the chores. After all, it is his child too, and just like all of the other decisions that they’ve made about how they are going to raise it, he thinks that the decisions Melinda makes that would affect the child should be equally open for discussion (and even potential veto).
Melinda, on the other hand, believes that Tom is being overbearing and controlling. She believes that, until the baby is born, it is her body, and she is free to do what she wants. As long as she is carrying their child, she says, her wants and desires will always outweigh Tom’s because he is not the one that has to live with the pregnancy. Tom is free to offer his input, and she will always take it into consideration out of respect for him as a partner, but the final decision is hers. She argues that Tom is being unfair and has no right to be upset when she acts contrary to his desires.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Are Tom and Melinda truly equal partners during the pregnancy, or do Melinda’s concerns for her own autonomy take precedence?
2. What sort of responsibilities does Melinda have toward Tom and his concerns as the father of the child she’s carrying?
3. Do Tom and Melinda’s respective shares in decision-making change after the baby is born? If so, how and why?
“Studying ethics is a waste of time because it’s all just a matter of personal opinion.”
“Studying ethics is a waste of time because I’m a Business/Law major… ethics is for losers!”
“I don’t need to study ethics (or worse, shouldn’t study ethics) because my holy book and/or religious leaders answer all moral questions for me.”
“This teacher is going to try to brainwash me into becoming an atheist, pagan, communist, socialist or some combination thereof, thereby condemning me to social embarrassment, familial ostracization, religious excommunication and/or eternal damnation.”
“This teacher is going to try to indoctrinate me into accepting their male, white, female, black, straight, gay, gendered, non-gendered, American, European, Hispanic, non-indigenous etc. perspective, thereby dishonoring my own identified culture.”
“This teacher is distractingly attractive (Gavin Enck, I’m looking at you!).”
Others? Retorts from students? Click that comment button… You know you wanna…
The following is the first article in a limited series by Houston Middle School Ethics Bowl founder and coach Deric Barber.
A few years ago, I went searching for a quality extracurricular academic activity for my middle school students. Debate seemed promising. After all, debate gets students to think about other perspectives. So I decided to observe one with a parent who was a volunteer judge.
When I told the folks at check-in I was there to observe, they invited me to judge. I told them I didn’t feel qualified, having never even attended a debate, let alone properly trained to judge. Their reply: “It’s easy. Just pick the team you think is best.”
Before I knew it, I was judging. I quickly realized that the students had prepared long and hard, which sent me scrambling to keep track of their complicated arguments. I’m sure they assumed I deserved to select a winner. But despite my appearance, little did they know I was thinking, “What a shame for these students to have some walk-in amateur choose which they consider ‘the best.'”
Well, I picked “the best” team and moved on to the second round. It was this round that ripped my heart out. One team was quick, poised, and ready to attack, while the other was younger and less confident. When the cross-fire portion of the round began, the older team grabbed the floor and started hurling accusations, taking phrases out of context, twisting what the other team had said to create something they had not, declaring how stupid the other team’s position was – the classic Straw Man fallacy.
The younger team wasn’t ready for this tactic. Anytime they tried to explain that the other teams’ (mis)interpretation was not what they had said, the aggressive team would grab the floor again with more ammunition, throwing the younger team into confusion. The younger team continued to fall into this trap. And when they’d try to clarify their view, the aggressive team would talk over them and refuse to stop, with both talking so loudly I couldn’t keep up with either.
Eventually a member of the younger team, having been bullied so aggressively and persistently, began to cry. What’s worse is that the bullying team went on to win the tournament! The bullies were distinguished as “the best” for the debate.
I came away thinking, “Is this what we’re teaching our children? That discussion is about talking over and past one another rather than listening? About “winning” even if it leaves the other side hurt and crying? About blindly convincing others to our side rather than working together to find the best solution? Even when we know our views are unexamined or even plain wrong?”
What I came to realize is that debate aims at persuasion by any means necessary, usually of uncritical thinkers. Americans too often think this is the best way to unpack issues. I agree, debate does help a student take that crucial first step and consider another view than one’s own, namely “the affirmative” or “the negative.” However does that one step in the right direction get us to “the best.” What if the answer lies outside of a given proposition altogether?
The people involved in debate, most of them loving parents and generous volunteers, no doubt are helping. They’re helping participants build speaking confidence and giving them a forum to practice one form of communication. They’re helping kids learn about important issues and setting the expectation that they’ll be engaged citizens.
But from my brief experience, traditional debate doesn’t get us all the way to “the best.” I am concerned that many of our brightest, creative, young minds are being limited to a winner/loser, I’m right/You’re wrong thinking that is divisive and falls short of “the best” for our nation and world. If only there were a better alternative, I suspect many of these well-intentioned parents and volunteers would adopt it.
Following the debate, I continued my search. It just so happened that Houston was holding its first High School Ethics Bowl.
Philosothon has much in common with Ethics Bowl. Both require civility and critical thinking. Both balance healthy competition with enlightened cooperation. And both feature exceptionally good-looking judges.
Alan Tapper and Matthew Wills recently wrote an article on just how good-looking these philosopher-judges are, especially when that Deaton fellow is involved. Kidding! It’s on the question of whether the cooperative nature of Philosothon can survive in light of its competitive elements, a topic relevant to Ethics Bowl for sure.
One argument Tapper and Wills consider is that since demonstrating cooperation is required to win, a team’s competitive spirit can (oddly) incentivize cooperation. Aggressive, obstinate teams who attack their opponents and interpret their arguments in the worst possible light may do well at a traditional debate. But not at a Philosothon, and not at an Ethics Bowl. Therefore, the competitive will to win can actually inspire cooperation, at least when judges are directed to assign points accordingly.
However, this raises the question as to whether an impure motive dilutes the laudability of an action. Surely a team with civility embedded in its culture, demonstrating respectful dialogue because it’s internalized in team members’ character, is more deserving to win than a group of fakers. All else equal, I, like you, want sincerely civil teams to win and superficially civil teams to lose. But this is almost impossible to guarantee. Could skilled debaters study our norms, rehearse, put on a show for the judges and win, only to revert to their true disrespectful selves in the hallway? Of course. However, if the result is heightened civility, we probably shouldn’t complain. A sincerely civil team is likely to be wise, patient and understanding, and able to take such a loss with grace. For the sneaky team, the more they practice pretend civility, the more likely it will eventually become sincere. And what better way to encourage teams of all sorts to participate and enjoy the mutual-benefits of both Philosothons and Ethics Bowls than to lure them in with exceptionally good-looking judges.
One advantage of Ethics Bowl over traditional debate is that students aren’t forced to speak. This allows team members who would prefer to contribute during preparation, conferral periods and between rounds to do so without pressure or shame. In fact, it’s conceivable that a team captain could focus on research, argument construction and strategy, and leave every bit of bowl day verbal delivery to others.
However, Ethics Bowl is certainly a supportive environment to improve speaking skill and confidence. Plus, so many doors open when you’re comfortable in front of a crowd. If there’s anyone we want prepared to vocalize their views, its Ethics Bowl alum.
If you’re a coach (or competitor, or organizer who supports coaches), I’ve convinced you, and an accessible how-to would help, my humbly-titled public speaking book audiobook is now free on YouTube. It’s mainly for college students and young professionals. But I think many high schoolers would like it as well. If you try it, let me know!
Coaches, the only section you might screen is the “Urban Honey Badger” assertiveness exercise in Chapter 6: Conquering Nervousness. It’s borrowed from the world of self-defense and is a tad intense. However, that’s an Urban Honey Badger right there on the cover in a Socrates pose, so it can’t be that bad. Check it out and judge for yourself. Enjoy!
P.S. If you’d rather read than listen, it’s of course available at Amazon, but just shoot me an email and I’ll gladly share the full PDF.
Ethics Bowl began in the U.S. on the college level, first in Bob Ladenson’s classroom, then at APPE sessions under the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl. Several years later, folks like Fred Guy in Baltimore, Roberta Israeloff on Long Island and George Sherman in St. Petersburg found success extending them into high schools. And slowly, innovators like Deric Barber in Houston tried Ethics Bowl in middle schools as well.
In Australia, the high school version came first, followed by middle and elementary school. And this fall, our friends down under are holding their first collegiate-level Ethics Olympiad.
Gold, silver and bronze awards will be determined by three Zoom-based heats on October 4th. Each team needs a coach, up to two teams are allowed per institution, members may be undergraduate or grad students and must be enrolled in “a tertiary institution in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore or Hong Kong.”
Kudos, Matthew and team! I understand that several schools in India participated in a recent high school Ethics Olympiad. Awesome that you’re not only expanding geographically, but across age groups as well.
For more information click here or email admin [at] ethicsolympiad [dot] org.
Progress on Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! continues, and one submission I found especially insightful was from Fort Lewis philosophy professor and author of Beyond Fake News: Finding the Truth in a World of Misinformation, Justin McBrayer. Justin explains how disagreement over basic facts can drive substantial moral disagreement, even among people with shared values, something Ethics Bowlers often neglect. He graciously agreed to an email interview – enjoy!
Matt: Justin, I’d like to begin by quoting you. “Even if two people share all and only the same ethical values, they might come to radically different decisions about how to behave and what is right and wrong. That’s because they might be starting from different viewpoints about what is true or how the world is. So just as we need Ethics Bowl to help people think through their value commitments, we need a focus on applied epistemology so that people can think clearly about what the world is like.” Your point here is clear, but can you give an example?
Justin: Yes, and I think this sort of disagreement is becoming more and more common. For example, in the aftermath of the Roe decision, I notice that lots of people disagree about whether an Unborn Developing Human can feel pain, whether they have futures, whether they are conscious of particular things, etc. Those are all non-value issues. Sometimes when people change their minds about these non-value facts, they change their positions on moral issues. For example, if you come to believe that a UDH can experience fear and feel pain after 26 weeks, you might change your stance on when abortion is morally permissible.
Matt: That’s an excellent point, and probably explains why so many are baffled by others’ inability to appreciate moral truths obvious to them. Two people could be equally compassionate. It’s just that they hold different assumptions about an Unborn Developing Human’s ability to experience pain, whether it constitutes an entity with a future like ours, when its nervous system is developed enough to have thoughts, etc. The same could be true for differing assumptions about how burdensome pregnancy can be, what degree of choice women exercise when voluntarily engaging in sex, etc.
I’m wondering if anything can be said for how Ethics Bowl might ameliorate, exacerbate or otherwise address this. Is there anything coaches or rules committees or judges can do to help participants better recognize when differing assumptions are driving people with similar values to opposing conclusions? I would think that Ethics Bowl minimizes the impact of factual differences by stipulating facts right there in the case. Teams are allowed to do outside research. But it’s not expected or usually rewarded. Still, I can imagine teams disagreeing starkly over outcomes – whether a policy would make the world safer, contribute to climate change, discourage law-breaking, etc.
Justin: I agree with the first point: if we stipulate certain non-value facts at the outset, that will focus the attention on the values in play. But from my limited experience, Ethics Bowl cases don’t do a good job of this. They need to explicitly say things like (a) assume that 10,000 people will be harmed by this product each year or (b) the company’s decision will produce X amount of greenhouse gas or (c) the consumer is aware of the fact that the product is nutritionally useless. If we make it really obvious that teams can’t challenge those opening assumptions, the dialectic will be directed towards the value propositions that animate various applied ethical dilemmas.
Matt: You’re right. Cases do often leave a great deal open for teams to interpret. And when their factual assumptions diverge, so too will their moral conclusions. The interaction helps. But with so little time within a round, we can only expect so much. Maybe this is something we should coach teams to probe during their commentary? “Team A, your analysis seems to assume X. However, we actually thought Y was more likely. Would you agree that if Y were more likely, you’d actually endorse a different position?” Something like that might help participants better empathize, understand, appreciate and engage during prep, bowl day and beyond. And maybe that’s an early step in working together to identify more or less credible claims?
Justin: Right, so insofar as a case does NOT stipulate a certain non-value fact, we should encourage teams and judges (a) to recognize the non-value assumptions each side makes, (b) offer challenges to those assumptions and (c) offer objections that ask the other side how their conclusion would change if the non-value facts were altered in such-and-such a way. While we don’t want to go too far down the road of having teams try to evaluate and determine non-value facts (e.g. is pollution the main driver of climate change?), we DO want them to see that applied ethical conclusions typically rely on a non-value premise in the argument. Change that premise, and you’ll change what follows from your moral principle.
Matt: Agreed that we don’t want to turn Ethics Bowl into Research Bowl. But also agreed that all involved should appreciate how easily like-minded, reasonable people can arrive at very different conclusions – just takes disagreement over one key fact. And simply illuminating and making that disagreement explicit would advance the discussion. Thank you for making this even clearer than you already did, and for the encouragement to our coaches, teams and judges to listen carefully for differing assumptions. If nothing else, go ahead and stipulate facts and go from there. “If, for the sake of argument, we assume that a UDH after 26 weeks can feel pain…”
Justin: If you want an additional example besides abortion, climate change, vaccines, or just about any other polarized issue works. If you assume the vaccine is effective, then such-and-such follows. If you assume it’s not, then… Again, a difference of belief about non-values often lies behind what seems like intractable moral debate. And I agree with you that we don’t want to make it a research bowl. But we can do a better job of being cognizant about how our non-value assumptions often drive our value conclusions. Keep up the good work on the book!
