“Sweatshop Labor is Wrong Unless the Shoes are Cute.” Now there’s a provocative article title! In it, Paharia, Vohs and Deshpande argue that we’re more likely to make selfish judgments when we’re clear-headed. When our minds are fresh with computing power to spare, our ego inflates the force of reasons supporting what we desire. But when we’re mentally distracted, our subconscious has a tougher time rationalizing favored outcomes, and we’re more likely to endorse morally consistent and benevolent conclusions.
Know that the authors didn’t just speculate – they recruited more than a hundred people, asked half to memorize a 7-digit number, and then asked all to evaluate arguments justifying underpaying and overworking employees – specifically, to rank the ethical permissibility of going on a Caribbean resort vacation with questionable labor practices for their friends, but then also for themselves. The assumption – all participants would be motivated to excuse mistreating employees when imagining themselves enjoying the resort. But those trying to simultaneously remember “7264281” wouldn’t have the spare mental acuity to do so.
The result: participants who weren’t required to memorize the number were significantly more likely to excuse poor worker treatment when evaluating the trip for themselves, but evaluations of the vacation resort for their friends remained steady for both the cognitively burdened and unburdened group.
Notice how designing the experiment in this way (cognitively loaded vs. clear-minded participants, a Caribbean resort trip for someone else vs. you) sheds light on our egos’ tendency to rationalize when its our own imagined welfare at stake.
One upshot for ethics bowl is that the closer a case hits home, the more apt we probably are to evaluate it in a self-interested fashion. However, knowing this, we can re-evaluate our judgments, double-checking not only for perspective bias, but for our tendency to favor reasons, and possibly even ethical theories, that promote what we personally desire.
So the next time a case feels especially personal, take a step back, try remembering 7264281, and revisit it anew.
Last, should we expect a correlation between IQ and selfishness – the sharper and quicker witted more prone to rationalize? The same from the comparatively carefree? From seasoned meditators?
Maybe. But it seems that the wisest and most clear-minded among us tend to be the most morally mindful, or at least that’s been my experience befriending and working with applied ethicists, professional and amateur alike. Then again, this judgment itself could be another ego-driven rationalization… Time to remember 7264281 and try again.
Chapter Timestamp Links in the Description, Notes and Discussion Questions in the Comments – this sucker is ethics classroom ready
“Above all, I’m in awe of the book’s style and tone. It’s not easy to write philosophically about abortion – a subject that’s both, and equally, deep from a conceptual standpoint and emotionally wrenching in real-life… You found an effective way to write about abortion that’s accessible to undergraduates (and also, possibly to high school students). Your discussion not only is informed philosophically but also conveys to me a sense of supportive engagement of a kind one would experience if she/he had a good candid discussion, with a good friend, on a topic that’s both emotionally difficult and intellectually challenging. Bravo.” ~The Extremely Kind and Generous Creator of Ethics Bowl, Illinois Institute of Technology Philosophy Professor Emeritus, Dr. Bob Ladenson
Last April I posted an article calling for more ethics bowl cases on abortion. It’s a topic case committees have understandably avoided, but also one that the ethics bowl community could help address (if not us, who?). Little did I know the Supreme Court’s forthcoming Roe decision would leak and interest in the issue would explode.
Fast forward to the weekend before last, when I took my nephew Ethan skydiving for his high school graduation. Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane was HIS idea, not mine. But I did enjoy it (the 10-second freefall was pure bliss), and when you’re riding shotgun in a tiny plane about to plunge 10,000 feet, trusting that the tandem dude strapped to your back will monitor altitude and safely delivery your exhilarated body back to earth alive, this encourages reflection. Deep, meaningful reflection.
One good decision that came from that experience – to give away my books! My bills are paid and they’ll help more people if free, so why not? Plus, I’ve given away Ethics in a Nutshell via email and here at EthicsBowl.org on the Resources page for years, and it sells more than the others combined. So in the coming weeks I’ll be sharing the audiobook versions of all my books on YouTube, and will post the full PDFs on my website. Those that are relevant to ethics bowl (Ethics in a Nutshell on audiobook, The Best Public Speaking Book in PDF and audiobook), I’ll also mention here.
Mixing audiobooks MP3s, splicing together video animations, adding chapter headings and uploading files isn’t difficult, but it is tedious. But over the Memorial Day weekend I made time to share the full audiobook version of Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments on YouTube. It’s embedded above and available directly here.
There are other excellent abortion ethics books out there. However, none other than ethics bowl creator Bob Ladenson blessed mine with the overly-generous recommendation above, proudly shared with his permission. I’m not prone to bragging. But when the creator of ethics bowl endorses your book, you tell people. (Thank you, Bob!)
If you enjoy my summaries of the best abortion arguments philosophers have offered, and appreciate the pro-BOTH approach, tell a friend. If you’d like to use it in the classroom, be my guest – find notes and discussion questions in the first comment, and be on the lookout for the full PDF at MattDeaton.com soon (shoot me an email if you can’t wait). Also be ready for a surprise happy ending (one that more people from both sides of the traditional debate should be talking about) in chapters 11, 12 and 13… And enjoy British voice actor Carla Rose Smith’s velvety section intros, the perfect complement to my mild Southern drawl.
Argument by analogy is a powerful moral reasoning technique where our judgments about something clear are applied to something less clear, yet relevantly similar. Half asleep in bed this past Tuesday night, I was struck by a connection between lottery tickets and UDHs.
Imagine matching all five…
Oftentimes in the abortion debate, generally pro-choice authors emphasize how Unborn Developing Humans (or UDHs) are merely potential persons, rather than actual persons. They then quickly conclude that UDHs have very little value, and that abortions for most any reason are completely permissible. Sometimes they’ll invoke the language of rights, declaring, “Since UDHs aren’t persons, they have no right to life. And since UDH’s have no right to life, abortion is permissible — end of story.”
I’ve always found this puzzling. For one, honest ethicists arguing in good faith know full well sweeping rights claims are too coarse for the intricacies of real-life. But also because UDHs are the only thing that can grow into full persons, and often (if not usually) will become full persons if allowed.
That something with the potential to develop extremely high moral value (a person) already has very high moral value is intuitively compelling to me, but not everyone. However, he’s a basic analogy that helps clarify my thinking, and might inform and enrich yours.
The directions at Poweball.com read: “Select five numbers from 1 to 69 for the white balls; then select one number from 1 to 26 for the red Powerball.” Matching 1 or more of the first 5 numbers to the randomly drawn numbers entitles you to some money. But matching all five plus the Powerball wins the jackpot, which as of this writing sits at $181 million.
Imagine that you buy a ticket. Before the numbers are called, it’s probably worth less than the purchase price in light of the extremely low probability you’ll win (this is why many people call lotto paying your “idiot tax”). But imagine matching not only the first three numbers, not only the first four numbers, but all five white numbers. Whatever money you’d be entitled to for getting that far, you’d now have a 1 in 26 chance of winning $181 million. Whether you’re a greedy glutton or dream of philanthropy, that’s a LOT of money, and could fund a whole lot of ethics bowl expansion!
Would you say that since the ticket is merely a potential jackpot winner (with a 1 in 26 chance), rather than an actual jackpot winner, it’s therefore completely worthless?
Of course not. You’d guard it carefully, and with good reason. Even matching two numbers would get your attention. But three? Four? All five?
And so assuming conceived UDHs have a 1 in 26 chance (or greater) of growing into full persons (if genetically normal and in a healthy womb, they do), and assuming the value of a person exceeds or is somewhere in the ballpark of a Powerball jackpot, you should agree that UDHs can’t be casually dismissed as valueless clumps of cells.
Of course, this doesn’t imply abortions are never permissible — doesn’t mean that the high value of a UDH can’t be overridden. All it means is that the reasons needed to justify an abortion must be weighty enough to destroy something with already substantial value, and that anyone desiring to dismiss UDHs because they’re “merely” potential persons is probably a crummy Powerball player.
For most any issue, professional ethicists have thought about and published quality ideas. Rather than trying to solve an ethics bowl case from scratch, why not leverage existing wisdom? There’s no reason to defer to or agree with every argument out there. But your team’s analysis will almost certainly be enhanced, and judges will almost certainly be impressed, when they review and cite the arguments of contemporary philosophers. But where to begin?
Here’s Dr. Jim receiving some public praise for doing what he does best
Recently, former student, friend and medical resident, Jim Dolbow, invited me to comment on and co-publish a brief piece on patient modesty during emergency procedures. The main thrust: patients should either be told that they’ll be exposed during “code” treatments, or medical professionals should do more to cover their private areas during CPR, pulse checks and the like. Why? To honor patient consent and respect their dignity.
Less than two pages long, “If They Only Knew” was just released in the Journal of Patient Experience. An easy way to ease into the use of applied ethics journal articles, check it out here, and if you or your team would like to discuss, just let me know.
The American Philosophical Association recently showcased an ethics bowl syllabus redesigned and taught by Michael Vazquez of UNC’s Parr Center.
Using the ethics bowl format to teach democratic deliberation, the class pairs UNC undergrads as coaches for NHSEB teams across the country via the new NHSEBBridge program.
Especially impressive is Michael’s “toolkit” approach to teaching ethics. Check out the full post and syllabus, and leave Michael some positive feedback here.
If you’re a high school student (or coach a team of high school students) and have a few extra hours this weekend, there’s still time to enter the NHSEB’s case-writing competition. From an email shared on the 22nd:
“Eligibility: All currently enrolled high school students in the United States are eligible to enter.
Submission Deadline: March 1, 2022
Winner Announcement: April 10, 2022
Grand Prize: The author of the case selected will be awarded a $500 prize.
Honorable Mentions: Two prizes of $250 will be awarded to other distinguished cases”
For additional details, click here. And if you accept the challenge and would like me to review a draft, just send it to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by midnight Saturday.
Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! How the Anti-Debate Is Saving Democracy has been in the works for some time, and will soon be ready for beta reader feedback. What do beta readers do? They review a manuscript at their leisure, usually over 3-to-4 weeks, then provide general impressions, improvement suggestions and feedback to help make the final product better. Suggestions can concern chapter order, tone, word choice, topics – whatever comes to mind.
What’s in it for you? Apart from my eternal gratitude, I’ll thank you by name in the book, and mail you an autographed copy. Plus you can take pride in helping spread ethics bowl! The better the book is (thanks to your generous feedback), the more people will read it, the more it will help spread ethics bowl.
Thanks for considering! No special expertise required. If you’re an ethics bowl enthusiast in any capacity, you’re invited to beta read Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! For more information, shoot me an email or use the contact form at MattDeaton.com.
In January of 2019 I shared an Ethics Bowl Public Speaking Tips article. Knowing what you’re talking about, being yourself and practicing remain the foundation of smooth, confident delivery. But back then, almost all bowls were in-person. Today, almost all are remote.
I actually wrote a book on public speaking (now also on audiobook), revised it in 2021, and chapter 12: Using Technology, actually has a section on remote presenting. Here’s an excerpt that should help whether you’re an organizer, judge, moderator, competitor or coach. There are even a few ethics bowl references – enjoy!
This handsome creature is an Urban Honey Badger, honoring an assertiveness drill in chapter 6: Conquering Nervousness. Freaky head, but his body is from a famous Socrates statue (not Rodin’s “The Thinker” – common mistake).
Whether it’s via Zoom, Citrix, YouTube Live or good old teleconference, the challenge of holding a remote audience’s attention increases tenfold. It’s tough enough for people to resist checking their phones when they’re sitting right in front of you. Imagine the multitasking when they’re out of sight.
You’ll therefore have to up your audience engagement game, but your job as remote presenter is actually easier in many ways. If it’s audio only, you won’t have to worry about your silent message (though you won’t be able to use it to your advantage, either). And while you should still prepare a clear presentation and rehearse, you won’t need to master your material quite as well as if you were delivering it in person—can always pull up reference materials, refer back to your notes, and have a timer in front of you to ensure you stay on schedule (though definitely still rehearse, still know what material is coming before it arrives).
This past January, I was honored to be invited to discuss my Ethics in a Nutshell: The Philosopher’s Approach to Morality in 100 Pages with Chinese Ethics Bowl students. Thanks to tensions over Taiwan, economic competitiveness and the coronavirus (dang, China, you really screwed the pooch on that one), our governments aren’t the closest allies. Many consider an eventual Sino-American war inevitable. So I viewed the session as an opportunity to befriend ethics-minded future leaders, and maybe, in some small way, decrease the chances that my grandkids will be fighting China in World War III.
I asked the host if there was anything I might do or say to express my goodwill and respect, and he suggested a line from a famous Chinese poem. So my first words were, “Sheeyan chew woo yuan tchin, wa leeee, shan weigh lin.” Given my Tennessee drawl and the fact that I know zero Mandarin, I’m certain I butchered this badly. But it was supposed to roughly translate, “People can become friends and neighbors, even when they’re on the other side of the world.” The attendees seemed to appreciate the effort, and I very much enjoyed discussing argument by analogy, why we can’t base morality on legality, and other cool ideas with them. You can actually watch it yourself. Just search YouTube for “Deaton Ethics Bowl China Seminar.”
A couple of months after that, I was asked to kickoff a series of trainings for Ethics Olympiad participants in Australia. Another chance for cultural exchange, I opened by pulling out a globe. “If you were to get on a plane and fly all the way across the Pacific Ocean and land on the West Coast of the US, then drive east for 3-to-4 days, you’d make your way to the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains in the great state of Tennessee, which is where I live. What do Tennesseans do for fun? Well, lots of things, but in addition to soccer and ATV-riding, my own family enjoys trips to the mountains. Here’s a picture of us swimming at Indian Boundary Lake in the Cherokee National Forest.” About that time, I (and everyone else) heard a young man who’d forgotten to mute his mic say, “No, he’s still talking about his stupid family…” Ha! The Zoom screen was filled with faces, and from the look on his, he really wanted to blend in with the crowd. But since his mic was hot, his box lit up, I stopped, squinted to read his name, and immediately called him out. “Mickey Boffsetter? My stupid family? Did you not hear the host explain that I’m a kickboxer?” I rolled my chair backwards to the desk behind me and retrieved my “Fight of the Night” boxing trophy. “Do you see this? Don’t make me come to Australia.”
I was of course smiling and kidding, and he was of course mortified—tried to apologize and make excuses. “Sir, what I meant was…” But I just cut him off and poured it on thicker, which the audience loved—they were rolling with surprised laughter.
Another remote meeting icebreaker example, I once led a series of online workshops for offices interested in improving communication. Some had interpersonal issues (aka they hated each other), so I chose a lighthearted opener: Name That Tune. The first song: a Janet Jackson B-side track from 1984, “Communication.” Some recognized her voice, but no one got the song. The second was Led Zeppelin’s “Communication Breakdown,” which a few middle-aged white dudes knew. And the last was The Beastie Boys’ “Sure Shot” from their Ill Communication album, which no one but me admitted to ever hearing, let alone liking.
By the end most of the attendees were at least grinning, everyone knew the session’s focus would be improving communication, and that I was an approachable host with excellent musical taste.
Another example: I once gave a webinar on business ethics to a mixed group of human resource specialists, website designers and managers. To get them in the ethical thinking mood, I began with what philosophers, attorneys and fans of NBC’s “The Good Place” know as the classic trolley scenario.
Imagine seeing a runaway trolley about to crash into and kill five track workers. You then notice that you’re standing next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto another track, sparing the first five, but killing another worker. What should you do? Stand by and allow the original five to die? Or pull the lever, save the five, but effectively kill the one?
I then asked an open-ended question. “What do you think a person in this situation should do, and why?” This led to a conversation on the differences between psychological predictability, legal permissibility, and moral rightness, and opened the participants’ minds in ways a poll or monologue never could have. When we got to the case study on employee privacy, I had no trouble getting folks to discuss, which was my goal all along.
In cases of remote audience disengagement emergency, one somewhat mean tactic is to ask a question and call on attendees by name (depending on the software, you should be able to see their names right there on the screen). Once you’ve called on a couple, everyone will pay attention so they don’t get caught dozing. But again, this is mean, so if you do it, be gentle, confess a time that you were called on and didn’t know the answer, and mail everyone chocolate afterwards.
However, all the chocolate in the world won’t help if your presentation is bad. So remember to apply the basics: thoroughly research your topic and organize your material, punch up your key points with emotionally potent examples, and practice, practice, practice. Enunciate and speak directly into the mic (confirmation that your audience can hear you is a good idea). If you’re using a webcam, your silent message is back in play, and now includes everything in the background, so make sure the camera is capturing your face and torso—not just the top of your hair and ceiling. Unless you have hair like Vanilla Ice did in the 90s, in which case zoom in on that glorious mane.
Look at the camera as much as you can to simulate eye contact. Looking at the lens rather than your screen will make your delivery feel more intimate, though the audience may not be able to articulate why.
Last, minimize background noise and distractions. With a four-year-old on the loose, my home office isn’t the most silent of studios. But Noah’s noisy playtimes are a blessing and burden I gladly accept, and the rest of the family does an excellent job keeping him quiet(ish) anytime I’m leading an important call.
In fact, the last time someone crashed a remote meeting on my end the culprit wasn’t kids, but livestock. An unseasonably warm February afternoon, I had my office windows open, and when my neighbor delivered some hay (did I mention that I live in the sticks?), his cows thanked him with moos of joy. I thought they were too far away for my mic to pick up. But their bellows of lunchtime joy echoed throughout the valley, all the way to the attendees’ speakers. “Matt, are those cows in the background?” “Yeah, sorry about that. They were hungry.”
Progress continues on Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! How the Anti-Debate is Saving Democracy. If all goes well, it’ll be ready for release in paperback, Kindle, audiobook and for free in PDF right here at EthicsBowl.org in time to kickoff the 2022-2023 season. One recent development: villains!
SuperSocrates, whose mission it is to elevate discourse and facilitate the collaborative pursuit of justice, is our hero. But rather than battling abstractions, he channels the power of ethics bowl to combat specific enemies. Or such is my idea for an early chapter 🙂
Below are some draft characters. Have ideas for better names, better descriptions, better villains? Worried this is too silly? Not silly enough? Share your thoughts in the comments and thanks in advance!
Dr. Denial
Power: sewing uncertainty
Catchphrase: “What is truth, really?”
Weaknesses: investigative reporters, Snopes
Subjectivo
Power: eroding moral standards
Catchphrase: “Yeah, well that’s your opinion, man!”
Magritte-inspired Rawls art by philosopher Renee Bolinger – I have this print hanging in my home office!
Most ethics bowl teams are familiar with the four dominant ethical theories: Kantianism, Utilitarianism, Care Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Sometimes you’ll hear mention of a political philosophy such as Libertarianism. And there’s rumor that a team once tried to base a case analysis on the work of Hegel (not advised!).
However, John Rawls’s Veil of Ignorance / Original Position is a viable, underused approach (far more viable than anything to do with Hegel). It’s especially useful when a team first begins analyzing a case or as a double-check against latent bias as competition nears. How does it work?
Here’s an excerpt from Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments where I introduce the approach. Note that Rawls considered it an extension of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, and Kant considered his Categorical Imperative an extension of the Golden Rule. So if this feels faintly like treating others the way they’d like to be treated, it kinda is – an innovative way to imagine yourself in multiple others’ shoes. Enjoy!
Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell Chapter 10: Third Parties
Whether wealthy or broke, healthy or sick, gay or straight, people tend to prefer policies that benefit them personally. Even when we try to be objective, rich black men wind up preferring policies that advantage rich black men. Working-class whites wind up preferring policies that benefit working-class whites.
This presents a problem. Our conclusions are supposed to be the product of logic, not power. However, what if there were a way to transcend our clouding biases?
The Golden Veil
Out of the corner of your eye you spot a luxurious gold curtain floating in mid-air. Across the top reads a mysterious Lord of the Rings-style inscription. It’s not written in a recognizable language. But somehow you know it says, “Veil of Ignorance.”
Curious, you pull it aside and step past. A flash of light dims to a soft glow. You know you were just reading about abortion ethics. But you can’t remember where you were. In fact, you can’t remember much of anything about yourself—your name, race, gender, income, occupation, education, religious commitments, political allegiances, handicaps, talents, hobbies, passions, phobias. Not even your favorite flavor of ice cream.
Holding up a hand to inspect your skin color, you can only see a shade of gray. Feeling your body to determine your sex, your brain won’t say.
Dumbfounded, yet oddly at peace, you see that I’ve followed you. We both admit an overwhelming desire to discuss abortion. But we can’t remember if we’re generally for or against it, what our family and colleagues expect us to think about it or how we ourselves might be impacted by it.
You suggest that we revisit the Rate That Abortion exercise. We do, and while we’re happy with our scores, they’re definitely different than before.
We discuss the nature of the conception, the mother’s interests, the UDH’s value, the child’s quality of life and the father’s autonomy. On some level, we want our conclusions to benefit us personally. But blocked from knowing who we are, we’re prevented from gaming the analysis in our favor.
Recognizing that personal preferences should have no bearing on morality, we agree that whatever we decide behind this magic golden veil should govern our views when we return to the real world. We know that we may not like what we’ve decided here. But we shake hands nonetheless, promising to promote whatever conclusions we’ve drawn from this enlightened perspective.
20th century American political philosopher John Rawls designed this “Original Position” thought experiment as a sort of reasoning machine.[1] Issues go in, more objective than usual answers come out. His primary focus was the basic structure of society, or what a nation’s constitution would ideally guarantee. But the method can be applied to any issue, including abortion.
I’ll save the full exposition of Rawls for Political Philosophy in a Nutshell (forthcoming 2025, maybe?).The idea here is to offer his approach as a supplement. If you didn’t know if you were male or female, Republican or Democrat, Baptist or Agnostic, rape victim or expecting father, how might your analyses change?
In fact, how might your analyses change if you didn’t know if you were an impacted third party? Everyone’s interests should matter some. The question is, how much?
Give Rawls’s approach a try as you consider (and reconsider) ethics bowl cases. We all have our biases, and there’s no way to root them out completely. But imagining what we might think if we could scrub them away can get us closer to an objective perspective. Desk copies of the book are free for educators — just ask. And if a 20-minute lecture vid would help, click here.
[1] Rawls wrote several books, but for a thirty-page synopsis see his “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Summer, 1985) pages 223-251. Or find my twenty-minute lecture vid on Sandel’s Justice: Chapter 6 at youtube.com/MattDeatonPhD
