The flecks of grey, the furrowed brows, the air of unspoken wisdom. Ethics bowl judges are an intimidating bunch. However, here’s a secret. Behind that aura of philosophical gravitas, judges are often the most nervous people in the room.
For one, they may be pedigreed, but are comparative amateurs when it comes to the cases. Teams (good teams, anyway) have dissected them from multiple angles, parsed the nuances and developed all-things-considered views for the entire set. They’ve anticipated objections, formulated pre-emptive replies and strategized how to respond come what may. Judges (good judges, anyway) may have read the case pool once. Those who’ve taken the time to sketch a few notes – and can actually read their handwriting – are doing better than most.
Then there’s the isolated responsibility. Teams can divvy up roles: Suzie covers the team’s general position, Sally the moral relevancies, Sam what a critic might say and a response. They’ve rehearsed, mock bowled with other teams and members knows that if one needs a little help, the others will pick up the slack. Judge collaboration is actually discouraged, each segregated island tasked with delivering an independent objective score. The pressure!
But it’s the last segment of each round – the judges Q&A – when vulnerability peaks. Everyone keenly listens to what you ask and how you ask it. Was there a hint of confirmation in her voice, of disagreement in his posture? Critiqued live and between rounds, while a judge’s role is to judge, they’re also being judged, and are hyperaware.
Then there’s the internal conflict. Part of you is tempted to use the platform to (humbly) steer the discussion towards whatever resolution you think best. Part of you wants to use your brief window to correct a glaring error or illuminate some neglected moral twist. Part of you wants to confirm your authority and expertise, indeed, the authority and expertise of the entire ethics profession.
Talk too much, and you risk coming across as pompous. “Will this guy ever shut up?” Talk too little, and you risk inspiring doubt. “Is that all he had to say?”
I share this not to inspire pity, but to reassure. If you’re a judge and feel any of the above, this is normal. Take a breath, do your best, and remember that without you, the many benefits of ethics bowl would not be possible. But if you’re a team member losing sleep over what a judge may think or ask, know that whatever anxieties and insecurities haunt your bowling experience, you’re not alone. In fact, there’s a good chance the kind volunteers entrusted to judge you are the most nervous people in the room.
While the Michigan High School Ethics Bowl is a fully sanctioned (and arguably the nation’s coolest) NHSEB regional, they don’t use the standard case pool. Instead, local folks author a set intended to be more relevant to the community. From what I can tell, most of the cases and issues are applicable nationally, if not globally. But it’s a uniquely engaging pool, with brief author bios confirming that they’re written by Michiganders, for Michiganders.
Case 4 features a hospital administrator forced to decide whether to honor a request that might complicate a delivery. The mother asks that monitoring of the Unborn Developing Human’s heartrate be disabled during a Cesarean section delivery. The crux of the conflict comes in the final paragraph: Labor and delivery “guidelines suggest that continuous fetal heart rate monitoring is safer for the fetus, because it can allow for early identification of a rupture of the Cesarean scar [a scar due to previous C-sections]—which is deleterious to fetal (and possibly also maternal) well-being. The clinician caring for this person is insistent that the guidelines for continuous monitoring be followed and implemented, but the laboring person is insistent that they will not consent to its use.”
Why a mother would want heartrate monitoring disabled during delivery, I’m unsure. But her motives are relevant to the decision. Is her request driven by some firm, foundational religious reason? (A C-section is already a very unnatural delivery, so it can’t be an objection to the technological help.) Would the monitor make delivery distressing? (Maybe a previous C-section delivery ended badly, and hearing the monitor—or simply knowing the heartrate is being monitored—would cause severe anxiety.) Whatever the case, the strength of the reasons behind her request matter.
The level of risk is also relevant. My wife delivered twice via C-section, and from what I recall, the actual surgery (not counting prep) didn’t last more than twenty minutes, if that. (This doesn’t mean delivering that way is easy or non-dangerous. She suffered a “high spinal” with the second that could have killed her.) If the pregnancy has been normal and checks suggest delivery will be uneventful, maybe disabling the heartrate monitor wouldn’t be a big deal. Maybe complications are exceedingly rare. Then again, to the extent the lack of monitoring would put her or the Unborn Developing Human at unnecessary risk of death or disability, that potential impact would weigh in favor of going ahead and taking the precaution.
It’s also the case that the medical professionals have to balance the mother’s wishes against the Unborn Developing Human’s value, as well as risks to the resulting child’s quality of life. This late in development, the UDH is not only a potential person, but in a few minutes, it will also be a birthed baby. Fully formed and possessing many features of personhood (consciousness, the ability to feel pleasure and pain, the ability to form relationships), and well on its way of becoming a full member of the moral community, more than one party’s interests are at stake. Were the woman not pregnant, we could appropriately focus on her wishes. Were the pregnancy early term, the UDH’s value wouldn’t count as much. But this late in the game, that side of the equation is much weightier.
Ultimately, I’d recommend a conditional analysis. Rather than declaring, “The mother’s wishes should be respected, end of story” or “The UDH’s value should override everything else, end of story,” a thoughtful team could say, “The administrator should decide what to do based on a) the strength of the mother’s motivating reasons and b) the risk of death or disability in light of the value of a late-term UDH.” A team could stipulate additional details and offer a tentative conclusion. But these considerations definitely need to be in the mix.
Cool case! I’m sure the Michigan teams will offer awesome analyses at the bowl next month. I had the honor of judging in 2021, and was very impressed. But for a scheduling conflict, I’d be back this year for sure.
Kudos to case author Lisa Scheiman, Certified Nurse Midwife at the University of Michigan Hospital for 29 years, and trainer of midwifes, medical students and residents, for donating her time and expertise (she also authored case #3). And thanks to the NHSEB for continuing to support the Michigan Bowl’s prerogative to do their thing. Keep doing your thing, A2Ethics!
Earlier this month the American Philosophical Association in collaboration with the Philosophy Documentation Center awarded the National High School Ethics Bowl the 2021 Prize for Excellence and Innovation in Philosophy Programs. As the selection committee put it:
“Prior to the pandemic, NHSEB was already excellent and facilitated the participation of 4,000 high school student across the country… [But during COVID] NHSEB shifted their focus to access and to on-boarding new participating high schools through their NHSEBBridge program, which evolved into the NHSEBAcademy and became an online hub for students, coaches, judges, and volunteers to crowdsource ideas about ethical perspectives, gain perspectives on cases from NHSEB experts, and collaborate to address significant ethical problems. The Academy is evidence of philosophers doing their best work in a public forum, to advance the public good.”
Bravo, NHSEB! So many contributed to the initiative’s original launch, including ethics bowl creator Bob Ladenson, former Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Directors Richard Greene and Pat Croskery, Roberta Israeloff of the Squire Family Foundation, Jan Boxill, Goeff Sayre-McCord and Katelin Kaiser of UNC’s Parr Center, and early organizers from across the country including George Sherman in Florida, Karen Mizell in Utah and Fred Guy in Baltimore.
But it’s been new director Alex Richardson and support from teammates including Steven Swartzer, Delaney Thull, Austin Foushee and others who’ve steered and elevated NHSEB through the pandemic, turning what could have been a show-stopper into an opportunity for innovation and growth.
Super congrats to Team NHSEB, including the hundreds of coaches, judges, moderators, sponsors and volunteers who are helping take ethics bowl to the next level. Thanks to each of you for moving democracy in a more civil, respectful direction. And thanks to our friends at APA for this well-deserved recognition!
Enjoy this guest analysis by our friend Coach Michael Andersen on responsible scientific journalism – something that, as Mr. A explains, is trickier than one might assume…
Hola, filosofos. Similar to last week’s case “Just the Facts,” this weekwe’re looking into the ethics of journalism with Case #2 “Trust the Science”; however, the focus will instead examine the ethical responsibilities of science reporters attempting to convey complex and evolving expert knowledge about the virus’s evolution and health advice during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Please start by reading the case and the Discussion Qs. I’ve provided two brief Pre-Discussion videos to set the stage for our examination of this case (linked below). Please watch these after you’ve read the case and consider the Discussion Qs—but BEFORE our meeting.
P.S. To continue to help you use the MindMup 2.0 extension in Google Drive to map your team’s position on a case, I’ve linked below another Thinker Analytix video called “Example: Map an Argument with MindMup.” Teacher Nate does a great job in showing you with this sample how to map out a sample argument.
Today’s Discussion Topic
⦾ What is the ethical responsibility of science reporters when discussing something like the COVID-19 pandemic?
⦾ Is it ever ethically acceptable for science reporters to withhold information in the interest of the public good?
Pre-Discussion Resources
(Video) “What are Journalism Ethics?” @ National Endowment for Democracy. (12-10-2019) “Journalism ethics comprise standards and codes of conduct journalists and journalistic organizations aspire to follow. Principles of ethical journalism vary from place to place and context to context. The ability of journalists to adhere to ethical norms depends heavily on a constellation of often competing interests and forces they cannot control, including government interference, economic realities and technical limitations. However, standards typically include accuracy, objectivity, transparency, accountability, comprehensiveness, fairness and diversity.” [4:34]
(Video) “Ethical considerations for reporting on COVID-19” @ The International Journalists’ Network (6-11-2020). “Since the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) a pandemic, more and more journalists around the world have been pulled in to report on the frontlines of the global crisis. Understanding how to confront ethical considerations is important to present a balanced, fair and accurate report of what’s happening during the pandemic.” [0:58]
What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue?
Like most Ethics Bowl cases, Case 2 “Trust the Science” may appear at first glance more simple on the surface than it actually is. Many students might be tempted to think, “What’s the big deal? Journalists should just report the best and most recent science available, cite their sources, and make it readable enough for the general public. Why all the fuss?” Yet a more nuanced picture comes into play once you study the historical, economic and psychological dynamics of journalism a bit more closely.
It would be ideal for science writers if scientific literacy in America was better than it actually is.(a) As a result, responsible journalists are faced with the issue of translating sometimes very complex research—like the epidemiological evidence of the SARS Covid-19 virus’ rapid evolution into unique (and more virulent) strains. This task is harder than you might imagine. On the one hand, translate the research in an overly simplified way, and you could be accused of “dumbing down” the evidence or glossing over important details in the scientific findings; yet, on the other hand, stay more faithful to the actual complexity of the research findings and you risk losing most of your audience or sounding “elitist.” Hitting the “sweet spot” of scientific detail in your reporting can be a formidable task, requiring a lot of back and forth with the experts whose research you cite, as well as a deep familiarity with the education levels of your reading public. Senior Contributor Ethan Siegal of Forbes recently put it like this: “This fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be scientifically literate, and the accompanying, even if unintentional, devaluation of actual expertise, is in large part why so many of us mistrust and misunderstand science today. We can correct our course, but only if we understand what it actually means to be scientifically literate.”(b) So, in addition to the writing challenges already mentioned, there’s the complication that the target concept of “science literacy” is, itself, an idea about which there’s varying degrees of shared understanding in the journalism community.
Another complication here involves the evolving standards of journalistic excellence that have shifted over time in the past several decades, together with the increasingly hyper-competitive and tumultuous economic landscape that science reporters and their editors must contend with.(c )(d) The pressure to stay afloat economically in a competitive market, coupled with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle, the vast distractions of the internet and social media, an increasingly-polarized American society, and especially recent hostility toward the press by populist politicians, have led to a lot of pressure to market stories as well worth your (limited and possibly hostile) attention. As the case description notes, “…even the most reputable media still rely on gaining consumers through attention-grabbing headlines and engaging content, [so] you have a recipe for confusion.” Add to this picture a widespread distrust in some quarters of the public of the reliability of science news, or science itself as a source of knowledge (regardless of whether that reputation is deserved). Science journalists understandably struggle to contend with all of these social and economic forces as they research, compose, and publish their stories. And science reporting on (and during) the Covid-19 pandemic is no exception: let’s not forget that good reporting means getting out into the world to interview sources, confirm factual accuracy, and follow up on leads—necessitating an increased risk to a journalist’s exposure to Covid-19 over weeks or months of investigative reporting. [See optional sources # 2 & #5 below] Ethics Bowl teams that gloss over these complexities in their position on Discussion Qs #1 and #2 risk facing a barrage of clarifying questions from judges and the other team.
Psychologically, there’s another series of hurdles for science reporters covering the Covid-19 pandemic. People are dying, or have died, in the hundreds of thousands (even in the millions worldwide).(e) The numbers of deaths and subsequent ripple effects are staggering and probably overwhelm most people’s ability to martial emotions of care or to make sense of the loss, especially as the numbers continue to rise and no definitive end to the pandemic is in sight.(f) (g) Science journalists risk sounding indifferent to this widespread suffering if their stories lack a tone of empathy or suggest a tone of blame (due to some sectors of the public’s irresponsible behavior regarding precautionary measures like masking, social distancing or vaccination). Especially tricky for science writers who seek to correct the public’s misconceptions about preventative measures or vaccine safety is the Backfire Effect, wherein some segments of the population double down on their false beliefs in response to corrective measures (although, to be fair, recent research on this cognitive bias is inconclusive).(h) (i) Ethics Bowl teams who strive to articulate the moral dimension of this case accurately should deliberate with some care on these historical, economic and psychological dynamics of science reporting.
Discussion Q#2 explicitly brings the moral dimension of Case 2 “Trust the Science” into focus, proposing more directly a science reporter’s choice of “withholding information in the interest of the public good.” Again, a first-pass response might be, “No, that’s wrong, because withholding important information is, at best, a form of paternalism, or, at worst, a kind of deception or manipulation of the reading audience.” But as any veteran social media user should know by now, always revealing the absolute unvarnished truth of a matter might not be the wisest approach, given some audiences. And therein is the thorny issue, no? If repeated past evidence has shown that wide swaths of Americans have either consistently misinterpreted or distorted scientific evidence, or influential pundits with a vested interest in spinning the facts to suit an established narrative consistently twist the important truths of the evidence, or even if the evidence itself (or the implications of it) are bewilderingly complex, then science journalists—in some situations at least—may have some justification for “withholding information in the interest of the public good.” (j) Your team should discuss this dynamic and decide which position makes the most sense, given the evidence and reasonable considerations about the way the public (or bad actors in the media) react to controversial scientific findings.
You could also consider how science reporters and their editors might not be in the ideal position to forecast accurately what “is in the interest of the public good”—given the imperfect record of both the scientific community and science reporting in the past.(k) Moreover, is “the public good” always immediately obvious to anyone at the time of reporting or writing on public health crises like the Covid-19 pandemic? Sure, some health risks or behavioral consequences can be reasonably verified or forecasted; however, the challenge of balancing individual liberties with personal sacrifices for wider public health has been especially tricky for public officials.(l) (m) So, while science reporters might be well placed to verify the accuracy and implications of Covid-19-related research, knowing how to communicate the important and evolving complexities of said research—or whether to withhold parts of it to avoid unnecessary confusion—involves weighty decisions about the public’s right to know, the public’s capacity to process the information, and how the information may play out once released. Discuss with your team which approaches for science journalists are likely to safeguard the public’s interest most effectively, who science reporters ought to consult when releasing (or withholding) sensitive information, and the reasoning you rely on to address these concerns.
I predict that Consequentialist or Deontological ethical frames are likely to influence your moral reasoning in this case, or perhaps also a Care Ethics approach to the concerns mentioned above. Whatever approach to ethical reasoning you take, recall what Dr. Sager at PSU said about relying on any normative Ethical Theory for Ethics Bowl: “Ethical theory provides a toolkit to deepen and sharpen how we think about ethical cases. It does not provide a blueprint for analyzing or presenting cases.” In other words, use appropriate ethical frameworks to help you diversify and/or deepen your stated reasons for your team’s position, but never simply name drop a philosopher or ethical frame in an attempt to add credibility to your argument. Try not to get overwhelmed with your options here either. Begin by discussing, then articulating as clearly as you can, the answer to the question, What’s a good reason to believe this position? for each of your team’s proposed answers to Discussion Qs # 1 and #2. Maybe it’s beneficial foreseeable consequences that justify your supporting reason. Maybe it’s an appeal to a universally-held right or principle that does the justification work. Or maybe it’s an appeal to forms of care, compassion, empathy or relationships that all families or workplaces deal with when facing Covid-19 precautions, restrictions or concerns raised by scientific research.
Finally, regarding Discussion Q #3, I will keep my tips brief (given this already-long Tips article). On the surface, it may seem obvious for science journalists to collaborate with the government on reporting pandemic data; however, considering the significant pressure that a few public health departments at the state or federal level have faced from some elected officials, the question of how much, if at all, to collaborate with governments will depend on the quality and transparency of the government’s response to scientific research. In some countries, science journalists face significant danger to their persons or their careers by challenging an official government stance on pandemic-related public outreach, safety protocols, or quarantine policies.(n) A position that takes these risks into account is likely to be stronger than merely issuing a general “Yes, they should collaborate” message.
(c) Weaver, David H., Lars Willnat, and G. Cleveland Wilhoit. “The American journalist in the digital age: Another look at US news people.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96.1 (2019): 101-130.
(g) Joaquim, Rui M., et al. “Bereavement and psychological distress during COVID-19 pandemics: The impact of death experience on mental health.” Current Research in Behavioral Sciences 2 (2021): 100019. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666518221000061
(h) Swire-Thompson, Briony, Joseph DeGutis, and David Lazer. “Searching for the backfire effect: Measurement and design considerations.” Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (2020). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7462781/
(i) Nyhan, Brendan. “Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118.15 (2021). https://www.pnas.org/content/118/15/e1912440117.short
(Video) “Journalists adjust to unprecedented conditions during COVID-19.” @ CGTN America. (4-7-2020|). “In times of crisis, the need for journalism is more important than ever. The demand for information spikes, as it has during the coronavirus pandemic. But reporting has become more challenging, and many media professionals are risking their safety to do their job. CGTN’s Karina Huber reports.” [2:14]
(Video) “Mei Fong & Daniel Lippman: Ethics, Journalism, & COVID-19.” @ Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. (5-1-2020) “The Center for Public Integrity’s Mei Fong and Politico’s Daniel Lippman discuss the role of ethics in the work of journalists, focusing on the COVID-19 pandemic.”[7:05]
(Video) “COVID-19 impact on journalism under spotlight | South African Broadcasting Corporation” @ SABC News. (6-27-2021). “At least one thousand five hundred journalists have died of COVID-19 in over seventy countries. According to the Press Emblem Campaign, in May alone, over 200 journalists succumbed to the virus. Bringing vital information to citizens during a pandemic hasn’t been easy. And its led to calls in many countries for media workers to be moved up the vaccination queue.” [4:12]
(Video + Transcript) “Personal and social drivers of vaccine hesitancy.” @ SciLine. June 9, 2021. “The United States is one of the few countries in the world with enough COVID-19 vaccine doses to protect the vast majority of its populace. Yet hesitancy about vaccines generally, and COVID vaccines in particular, is stalling uptake. SciLine’s media briefing covered the role of social values and personal belief systems, including religion, in people’s decisions to get vaccinated or not; the factors driving parental choices about whether to vaccinate their children; and how public health messages and policies can influence vaccine hesitancy and acceptance. Scientific experts briefed reporters and took questions on the record.” [59:28]
(Video) “COVID-19, Science, and the Media: Lessons Learned Reporting on the Pandemic | Panel Discussion + Q & A” @ Petrie-Flom Ctr| Harvard U. (Oct. 26, 2021) ”As scientists and public health experts worked to understand the [Covid-19] virus, reporters worked to communicate to the public the state of the knowledge — an ever-shifting ground. From the transmission debate, to the origins investigation, to changes in mask guidance, to vaccine safety concerns, the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a particularly precarious nexus of science, politics, journalism, social media, and policy. This panel discussion reflected on this tenuous situation, potential areas of improvement in pandemic reporting, and lessons learned from recent experience.” [1:07.03]
2015-16 Regional HSE201B Case #8. Reporting on a Scandal: “The editor of the high school’s newspaper learns that a community service group has not functioned according to school rules: they awarded service hours in exchange for money raised. The leader of the club expresses regret and asks the editor not to publish the allegations because they will hurt his chances of college admission. How should the editor weigh her journalistic responsibilities against a student’s right to privacy?”
Another excellent analysis from our friend Coach Michael Andersen in Washington state, prepping his (very lucky) team for the Oregon High School Ethics Bowl. Thanks as always, Michael! And thanks to your team for sharing your superb coaching with the broader ethics bowl community.
Buenas dias, filosofos. This week, with Case # 11 “Just the Facts,” we’re looking into the ethics of journalism, the desirability of objective reporting, and whether news organizations have an ethical duty to maintain a certain relationship to the general public.
Today’s Discussion Topic
⦾ Do news organizations have an ethical duty to maintain a certain relationship to the general public?
⦾ If so, what is the nature of that relationship?
⦾ What, if any, is the value of objectivity in journalism?
Pre-Discussion Resources
(Video) “How to choose your news – Damon Brown” @ TedEd (6-4-14). “How do we choose which news to consume? Get the scoop on how opinions and facts affect the news and how to tell them apart.” [4:48]
(Video) “How Journalists Minimize Bias” @ Facing History.org (6-4-14). “Journalists discuss the idea of bias and explain the processes they follow to combat bias in their reporting.” [6:31, Transcript PDF]
What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue?
Grasping the moral dimension of this case may require you to step back and look at the broader picture of the journalism profession—it’s history here in America (and elsewhere), and especially with recent trends toward sensationalism, bias, corporate influence, and political polarization in news reporting. Surely, citizens of a democracy should care about whether the journalism they rely on for a healthy participation in government, or in other areas of social life, offers a quality (accurate, insightful) or shoddy (distorting, manipulative) view on the wider world. We have a shared interest in this project of improving journalism standards, either indirectly through our consumer habits (i.e., which news outlets we pay for or routinely tune in to) or more directly (e.g., through letters to the editor, calling in to radio shows, lobbying for stricter legislation governing news outlets, etc.).
The goal of robust objectivity or neutrality standards for professional news outlets is a moral issue because we need to trust these sources of information, and their reputation matters for their own sense of integrity, as well as our collective perception of it. (After all, journalists are people too, and they presumably care about the quality of the work they do, which provides them a meaningful sense that their work is worthwhile. Likewise, as citizens our sense of consulting the news to be informed must produce a feeling that such activity is worthwhile, and that the alternative—ignorance and apathy—is a worse option for us all. These ethical sources of meaning depend on the aforementioned standards of journalistic professionalism, since such standards provide the foundation of our trust that a news outlet’s reporting activity will result in truthful, insightful news.) So, consider trust and integrity as moral compass points that shape most people’s moral intuitions about the credibility of news outlets and the role they play in forming public opinion.
Clearly, Q1 refers to the “ethical duty” that news organizations owe to the general public, and Q3 inquires about “the value of objectivity”; so the case authors are obviously encouraging you to consider what is at stake morally for the parties involved (and more broadly for our society’s regard for the role the Press in a vibrant democracy). The case description notes how editors either fired, restricted, or banned these reporters when and where their personal histories with the topics reported on were seen to jeopardize the perceived integrity of the news organizations employing them. Given the reporters’ public history with these controversial topics (deemed a source of bias that compromised the objectivity and neutrality of their reporting), were these reactions by the news outlets warranted, in your team’s opinion? Or would an alternative approach to the situation be more morally defensible?
Consider too how trust and integrity are in tension with the value of fairness (as a form of justice). Fairness (as a form of justice) seems like an obvious moral concern for those sympathetic to the reporters’ perspective—since they clearly feel that their jobs and reputations were unfairly sacrificed “to protect the objectivity and neutrality of the reporting in question” (or at least the public’s perception of these ideals). If these reactions by their employers were indeed unjustly discriminatory, then fairness (as a form of justice) would be the anchor moral concept of any argument explaining that position. An interesting and parallel point here: one might also argue that trust and integrity go both ways: that the leaders of news outlets have a duty within their organizations to maintain an atmosphere of trust and integrity among their corps of reporters, since they won’t attract quality talent for long if these virtues are lacking in their day-to-day operations. Discuss with your team if an ideal balance of these values—trust, integrity and fairness—is achievable to arrive at the most morally defensible handling of these situations when they arise.
Maybe the goal of a robust journalism ethics can take cues from the field of law? Lawyers and judges typically recuse themselves from cases where they have a personal connection to the defendant or conflict of interest in the case’s outcome. A standard set of courtroom protocols ensures that these lawyers or judges are properly vetted from the procedures governing such cases, thereby maintaining credibility of the justice system as a whole (well, in theory at least). Should all journalists similarly recuse themselves from reporting on topics about which they exhibit a strong personal investment? How would such potential conflicts of interest be reliably determined, and what threshold of a reporter’s “personal investment” would necessitate recusal? Is their editor’s judgment sufficient? Is there a similar concern for the editors’ own biases? Some might view such a system of journalistic recusal as unnecessary to ensure “objective reporting.” After all, reporting on a controversial story isn’t quite the same as serving as a lawyer or judge in a criminal case, they might claim. What do you think? Are there common standards of practice for reporters that could be instituted to allow them to report on an issue, even though the reporter in question has strong personal convictions or personal history related to the topic?
An intriguing sidebar issue in philosophy, sociology and psychology is whether the ideals of objectivity and neutrality that govern most professional investigative sciences or practices can, in fact, present a distorting—rather than reliable—picture of reality. When such investigations involve social and personal realities (like political injustice, racism or sexism) charged with strong emotional content and subjective experience, the ideal of extracting one’s point of view from the messy details of life to that of a neutral spectator, removed and non-committed to the phenomena at hand, strikes many critics as outdated. [See Resources #2 and #6 below for more details.]
A fourth value (or virtue) is mentioned in the case description worth deliberating on: “What is better, say critics of objectivity, is to report the facts while also acknowledging one’s (limited and biased) point of view. This is a sign of humility, and it may also have the benefit of opening up more ethical reporting standards.” How, if at all, should humility play a role in moderating decisions about a news organization’s attempts to strive for objectivity—and thereby attain not just a semblance of institutional integrity but a genuine form of it? Can a set of journalism protocols be developed that emphasizes (and balances) all four of these values? Clarifying and instituting such a balanced set of guidelines could then inform day-to-day reporting practices, resulting in a more robust safeguarding of the news organization’s perceived worth, both externally and internally. (Of course, there remains the problem of clarifying what humility (or any other virtue) in reporting and editorial oversight actually looks like in practice. Is such a virtue-based goal realistic?)
What do you think? Are there other moral values (virtues) or principles that are relevant to answering Discussion Qs 1-3? I’ve emphasized here a kind of Virtue Ethics approach, but maybe there’s a Deontological or Consequentialist view of the the moral tensions raised by Case #11. Maybe it’s convincing to emphasize the rights due to the reporters here (although I tend to agree with Prof. Deaton about why rights-based appeals can be problematic). Maybe there’s an ideal balancing of interests of the parties involved that would somehow maximize happiness, perceived welfare or preference satisfaction. Good luck in your investigations!
Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study:
(Resource) “Current Topics: An Undergraduate Research Guide : Fake News. @ Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison Libraries.”This research guide provides information on recognizing fake news articles and websites, fact-checking, and researching fake news.” EDITOR’S NOTE:This is a superb resource! Bookmark it on your home + Chrome browser, and make sure that you study the definitions of “bias” (both “explicit bias” and “implicit bias”).
(Video) “Should Journalism Be Objective? Serial: Part 2.” @ Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios. Jan 28, 2015. “Welcome to PART DEUX of our discussion of “Serial”, the insanely popular podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig. Last week we discussed objectivity in the law, and this week we’re turning our attention to objectivity in journalism. Journalists have been tasked with objective reporting for decades, but is that a realistic goal? Can any journalist be TRUELY objective?”[12:18] NOTE: The theme of transparency vs. objectivity in journalism is briefly outlined in this related lecture excerpt: “Jorge Ramos on Objectivity & Neutrality in Reporting.” [1:59]
(Article) “Why journalism is shifting away from ‘objectivity’.” @ The Christian Science Monitor. July 6, 2017. By Harry Bruinius. “Amid the unusual pressures of the Trump era, some are advocating a more interpretive or even combative approach to journalism – and argue that it will do more to help society.”
(Video) “Unprecedented attacks and distrust for the media? History says no..” @ The Christian Science Monitor. June 23, 2017. “The president’s attacks on the media and the public’s mistrust for it are nothing new. Decades-long trends have set the stage for them.”[8:34]
(Video) “Objectivity and Truth in Journalism: Is It Possible?” @ FORA.tv (Dec 24, 2012). “Scott Lettieri, news reporter for KGO radio, speculates whether an objective truth exists in journalism. Acknowledging that journalists strive for complete and absolute truth, Lettieri declares that citizens should synthesize all avenues of media and news to find it.” [3:37] POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING: The journalist interviewed here briefly (and non-graphically) recounts a story of a woman who was kidnapped, raped, and had become a victim of sex trafficking. Some students might find this brief account disturbing.
(Video) “Objective vs Subjective (Philosophical Distinction)” @ Carneades.org (7-10-16) “An explanation of the difference between objective and subjective, and definitions of each of these terms. How can you tell if something is objective or subjective? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” [5:31] EDITOR’S NOTE: Like many ethical topics, the moral dimension of this case intersects with other areas of philosophy—here, the epistemology and metaphysics related to knowing and discerning whether the ideal of journalistic objectivity is something properly categorized as subjective or objective. Without going down a rabbit hole too far, you should know that these sidebar topics will come up in the dispute about whether a news organization can trust a reporter (a subject), plus the editorial oversight process, to reliably maintain sufficient psychological distance from the topic reported on (presumably about which the reporter has some kind of personal investment). Are reporters reliably capable of the mental discipline needed to meet objectivity standards, and thereby ensure credibility of the news organization with the public? What kind of objectivity are we talking about? (Surely, journalism isn’t a science, where the objects of study remain consistent enough in time and space to render “objective” findings.) Is the ideal of objectivity in journalism even attainable for human reporters? (I.e., cue the pessimist’s view that “It’s ALL subjective; objectivity doesn’t exist!” ) …I think you get the picture. I recommend a practical lens when considering these questions. A pure objectivity for the human sciences or for professions like journalism may not be possible; nevertheless, the aim of objectivity might be practically necessary to differentiate quality from shoddy journalistic practice.
(Video) “Real News vs. Fake News.” @ Univ of Louisville Research Assistance & Instruction. Jun 19, 2020. “Citizen Literacy is an online toolkit that promotes the development of key information skills for democratic citizenship and features short videos, handouts, and activities that faculty across all disciplines can integrate into their courses and assignments.”
(Video) “How to Spot Fake News – FactCheck.org” @ FactCheck. “Fake news is nothing new. But bogus stories can reach more people more quickly via social media than what good old-fashioned viral emails could accomplish in years past.” [3:22]
(Article) “How Implicit Bias Works in Journalism” @ Nieman Reports. By Issac J. Bailey, Nov. 13, 2018. “Avoiding the pitfalls of hidden biases can lead to better story selection and more inclusive reporting. …A commitment to addressing implicit bias—an automatic or unconscious tendency to associate particular characteristics with particular groups—in news coverage could improve and transform audience engagement, increase trust, and lead to more accurate coverage depicting our increasingly diverse world.”
(Resource) “Media Bias Ratings” @ AllSides Media. “Everyone is biased — and that’s okay. But hidden media bias misleads, manipulates and divides us. AllSides Media Bias Ratings™ make media bias transparent, helping you to easily identify different perspectives so you can get the full picture and think for yourself.”
(Video) “Political media’s bias, in a single chart” @ Newsy. (Dec 28, 2018) “Vanessa Otero set out to rank an ever-growing partisan media landscape, with the belief that an informed public is a better public.” [4:26]
(Video) “Confirmation Bias | Ethics Defined” @ McCombs School of Business. (Jan 28, 2021) “Confirmation bias is the tendency of people’s minds to seek out information that supports the views they already hold. It also leads people to interpret evidence in ways that support their pre-existing beliefs, expectations, or hypotheses.” [2:20]
(Article) “The lost meaning of ‘objectivity’.” @ American Press Institute “This guide, like many of the others in API’s Journalism Essentials section, is largely based on the research and teachings of the Committee of Concerned Journalists — a consortium of reporters, editors, producers, publishers, owners and academics that for 10 years facilitated a discussion among thousands of journalists about what they did, how they did it, and why it was important. The author, Walter Dean, was CCJ training director and API Executive Director Tom Rosenstiel formerly co-chaired the committee.”
Related Ethics Bowl Cases:
2015-16 Regional HSE201B Case #8. Reporting on a Scandal: “The editor of the high school’s newspaper learns that a community service group has not functioned according to school rules: they awarded service hours in exchange for money raised. The leader of the club expresses regret and asks the editor not to publish the allegations because they will hurt his chances of college admission. How should the editor weigh her journalistic responsibilities against a student’s right to privacy?”
3. 2016-17 National HSE201B Case #7. Teaching all sides: “Should a high school teacher in a class that studies many controversial subjects teach all sides of every issue or favor some sides over others? Should she use her own judgement, teach all sides of public opinion, or defer to experts and scientists? What questions can she treat as open and what questions should she teach as closed?”
The following guest analysis is by Michael Andersen, longtime ethics bowl supporter, Ethics Club Adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics, Vancouver, WA, and regular EthicsBowl.org contributor. Thank you once again, Michael, for your superb analysis! This is actually from a PDF Michael created for his team, and is an excellent example of engaging a team before a coaching session, and leaving them with ample resources for further reflection. And sharing it publicly during the season is also a wonderful example of putting collaboration before competition. The spirit of the ethics bowl is strong with this one!
Good morning, philosophers. I hope that you had a restful Thanksgiving Break. Our case for discussion this week will be Case #3. “Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting” — a fictional one (but based in a realistic scenario) involving the ethics of ghosting via dating apps, as well as the gender norms and dynamics that sometimes affect the way individuals approach online dating. I’ve uploaded the case session PDF below, and please read the case and the Discussion Qs therein. Also, this week I’ve started a mini-section in the PDF called “Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case” in which I try to help you think about the central moral dimension involved–the answer to the questions What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue? You might also find useful the two (optional) PSU Ethics Bowl videos “Care Ethics for Ethics Bowl” and “Virtue Ethics for Ethics Bowl,” both of which present moral frameworks that seem relevant to this case. Check them out if you have time.
BONUS: Some of you might want to see another example of an Ethics Bowl round. If so, I’ve linked below the Championship Match of the 2021 National High School Ethics Bowl, between Kent Place High School (NJ) and University High School (CA). The first half of the round discusses case #8 “Killer Art” (see National Case set link below), and the Moderator’s Q appears on screen @ min. 4:21. The second half (beginning @ min. 43:05) discusses case #10 “Do You See What I See?”, and the Moderator’s Q appears on screen @ min. 43:31.
Today’s Discussion Topic
⦾ Are there times it’s permissible to ghost? Or is it permissible for some people to ghost, even if it’s not okay for others to do the same?
⦾ How do gender norms and dynamics affect the way that individuals should approach dating?
⦾ Do the same rules apply to everyone? Or is it permissible for some people to behave in certain ways while it would be impermissible for others to do the same?
Pre-Discussion Resources
(Video) “What Psychologists Can Tell You About Ghosting” @ SciShow Psych (6-24-19). “Ghosting is when someone terminates a relationship by ending communications abruptly and without explanation. Whether or not you’d consider ghosting someone might have a lot to do with how you view relationships in general.” [11:08]
What is the moral question? What makes this an ethical issue?
Consider respect and dignity as two common moral intuitions at play in a dating encounter (whether it’s the initial or a follow up encounter), but these often conflict with a moral principle of autonomy—i.e., the right or condition of self-government. In the modern world (at least in many cultures), we reserve the right to decide for ourselves who we will date, for how long, and under what circumstances. What respect and dignity obligations do we owe to people in a dating situation? Shouldn’t there be some limits to our exercising of our personal autonomy in dating situations? In a face-to-face encounter, assuming we desire to end the option to date, and also assuming that one’s immediate safety isn’t at stake, most people would probably assume a minimum standard of basic decency is necessary. That is, unless the person under consideration is behaving abusively or in a rude manner, that person deserves a basic standard of respect and dignity in the way we turn down their offer(s) to date.
We’re all human, after all, and maintaining a climate of respect and dignity for all ensures more healthy social relations for everyone. In the context of a prospective date, simply dismissing or ignoring a person in a face-to-face encounter might be tolerated in some social circles, but it’s hardly admirable, as it results in people feeling disrespected and their dignity as a person violated. If only for the practical reason that others might treat us disrespectfully, many see a basic standard of respect and dignity as a reciprocal duty we owe to each other to make society work, and to make dating even possible. (If everyone ghosted prospective dates regularly, then no one would take the risk to date.) In the case description, Imani reflects that “She’s been ghosted before and it sucks. It usually leaves her wondering if she did anything wrong or if she’s an interesting person to talk to.”
Immanuel Kant convincingly argued that “…all and only persons (i.e., rational autonomous agents) and the moral law they autonomously legislate are appropriate objects of the morally most significant attitude of respect. Although honor, esteem, and prudential regard played important roles in moral and political theories before him, Kant … put respect for persons, including oneself as a person, at the very center of moral theory, and his insistence that persons are ends in themselves with an absolute dignity who must always be respected has become a core ideal of [modern morality].” (“Respect” @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
If the technology of dating apps makes it convenient for us to get into the habit of ghosting other people whenever the whim strikes us, then what kind of people are we likely to become? What kind of dating culture is likely to evolve where this becomes the norm? Maybe Imani in the passage quoted above is hinting not just at respect and dignity due to other persons but also a kind of self-respect, since whether or not she ghosts the men she might be interested in implies that getting into the habit of doing so reflects on her self image. Perhaps, she thinks, “I don’t want to be the kind of person who dismisses people this way” or “Will I respect myself if I’m habitually leaving prospective dates in the dark about my intentions, even if it’s convenient in the moment?”
Context, of course, matters a lot here. For Imani, while some online chat on the dating app has involved men who are “…demeaning or make inappropriate jokes, [and] some send unsolicited explicit pictures, [while] some just talk about themselves and don’t think to ask her any questions; …on the other hand, there’s three people she can think of who seemed really kind and thoughtful, and she can see herself interested in people like them in the future.” If these latter people—who likely will have feelings of rejection or uncertainty similar to Imani’s—are ghosted by her just like the men who behave rudely or selfishly, then in effect it’s her need for convenience that reduces all of the prospective dates to candidates for ghosting (as Jake suggests). Why should the convenient means (the technology) justify these harmful ends (a dismissal of basic respect and dignity due to the real person on the receiving end)?
Perhaps you might think that, for practical reasons, the sheer scale of options available to users of a dating app doesn’t realistically allow for one to engage with others as we would face-to-face. That’s the benefit of the app’s architecture, no? It’s like a digital version of a speed dating session with built-in match-making filtering, without the hassles of face-to-face pleasantries; and it facilitates remote communication without having to struggle through the energy-draining, risky exchanges that a face-to-face breakup would entail. These features enhance our autonomy and make it more likely that users’ preferences are matched and met (thereby making loneliness less likely and potential happiness in relationships more possible).
…But is that really what happens? This might not be the first (or last) technology whose initial promises for increased well-being turn out to be hollow in many cases. Perhaps dating apps, because of the way their architecture is designed, in the long run actually promote selfishness and/or rude treatment of others (much like the anonymity of other online platforms ends up making trollish behavior more common). If the moral value of autonomy is to rank highly in our moral deliberations, the quality of self-governance involved should matter, not just the assertion of one’s entitlement to it. If we govern ourselves poorly, selfishly, without regard for the dignity or respect of others, then our self-governance won’t matter much to others. This means that respect for the autonomy of others (and ourselves) depends on a mutually-reinforcing network of persons continuing to treat each other with dignity and respect. If any technology platform erodes our ability to offer this to each other, then shouldn’t we turn a skeptical eye to the harmful norms propagated by that platform? (Put simply, if dating apps make it easy to ghost other people, then it’s likely that users of those apps will make ghosting a habit—which, ironically, will make dating harder for everyone.)
What do you think? Are there other values (or virtues) relevant to this case, besides autonomy, respect and dignity? Are there principles like the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) that ought to govern our dating interactions, even online? Naming these relevant moral values or principles—especially if they’re in conflict or tension—will help your team correctly identify what is the moral question of case #3, as well as to respond to questions about what the central (most important) moral dimension of the case is. Once you name them, cited by evidence from the case description, discuss which values or principles deserve priority in answering the case’s Discussion Questions.
Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study
(Video) “PHILOSOPHY – The Good Life: Kant ” @ Wireless Philosophy. “In this Wireless Philosophy video, Chris Surprenant (University of New Orleans) discusses the account of human well-being and the good life presented by Immanuel Kant in the his moral, political, and religious writings. He explains why Kant believes that the highest good for a human being is the conjunction of happiness and complete virtue and how it is possible for an individual to attain these two things at the same time.” [5:53]
(Article) “Why I ghosted my best friend | My behaviour haunts me to this day.” @ BBC 3. By Anonymous. 22 October 2018. EDITOR’S NOTE: While this article involves online ghosting of a friendship and not dating, the subjects involved experience related ethical complications as with case #3 (e.g., the way technology mediates their exchanges, likely with a sense of alienating remoteness and the lack of emotional cues or accountability that would come through face-to-face interaction). The way that dating apps allow for an experience of convenient sorting and editing one’s communication with potential dates, as well as shields of anonymity and cultivated profiles, mirrors—in some respects at least—the manner in which friendships can be mediated in novel ways with online communication tools (in this case texting). It’s worth exploring how these technologies are conflicting with, perhaps even reshaping, our deep social instincts about emotional responsibility (and thereby our ethical codes) in intimate relationships. Is this author’s ghosting of her (former) friend comparable to Imani or Jake’s choices to ghost potential dates? If so, how are the situations similar? Which moral intuitions are at play in either context—online dating or online navigation of friendships?
(Article) “I’m a serial ‘ghoster’ in dating — here’s why I do it. @ Business Insider.By James Lindsay, Jun 4, 2018. EDITOR’S NOTE: Maybe I’m old fashioned, but this article offers a testimony about ghosting in online dating that I—personally—find problematic, yet the author does articulate how online dating can transform our sense of personal responsibility, normalizing (rationalizing?) ghosting behaviors that wouldn’t be acceptable in person. Sample: “Within the confines of a common social group, dating, no matter how casual, always required a certain decorum. If you didn’t want to keep seeing someone, you had to say so, because you were definitely going to see that person again. Online dating has no such confines.“
(Article) “Dating dilemma: is ghosting ever okay” @ THIS | Deakin Univ. Dr Petra Brown, Teaching Scholar, Faculty of Arts and Education, Deakin University. Retrieved 11/29/21.
(Article) “The Ethics of ‘Ghosting’” @ Ethics Sage. By Dr. Steven Mintz, PhD, is a professor emeritus from Cal Poly State University in San Luis Obispo. 09/04/2018.
(Article) “Pulling the sheet back on ‘ghosting’” @ ASU Now. “ASU Now consulted Maura Priest, an associate professor and bioethicist in the School of Historical, Philosophical, and Religious Studies and the author of the forthcoming book, The Ethics of Dating, to explain the how and the why of this phenomenon.” 09/20/2019.
2017-18 National HSE201B Case #16. Haunted by Tinder: “What values are at play when determining how we should interact with people we meet through online dating platforms? When, if ever, is ghosting someone on social media ever acceptable?””
2018-19 National HSEB Case #15. It’s Just a Preference: “Jason was recently encouraged by his friends to try online dating. After a few days of no hits, he finally matches with someone only for them to send a message saying, “Sorry, accidentally swiped right. Not into Asians”. While racial preferences seem to be common in online dating many claim that these trends in dating preferences are racist. Others argue that desire is deeply rooted and one shouldn’t feel obligated to go against it. To what extent are racial preferences in dating an individual character flaw? A broader social problem? Neither? Both?
Our friends at NHSEB Academy are hosting a Zoom-based case discussion workshop next Saturday, December 4th at 4:30 EST.
Organized and led by philosophy students taking UNC’s Ethics Bowl and Democratic Deliberation class, coaches and teams will be invited to kindly and cooperatively think through cases 4, 7, 9 and 15:
Suffering in the Wild
23 & Memaw
Priorities, Priorities…
All Eyes on You
Absent judges, score sheets, rankings and awards, this should be a wonderful opportunity to consider these cool issues in good faith. And with many bright moral thinkers in attendance, it should be a simple way to elevate our collective understanding… and also give your team an edge 😉
The following guest analysis is by Michael Andersen, longtime ethics bowl supporter, EthicsBowl.org friend, and Ethics Club Adviser at Vancouver School of Arts & Academics, Vancouver, WA. Thank you, Michael, for sharing this superb analysis!
Case #8 from the 2021-22 NHSEB Regional Case Set, “Art with an Asterisk,” raises some thorny questions about the hazy territory between art and morality. Question 1 (Q-1) asks, If it is possible to celebrate the art without excusing the transgressions of the artist, what form should that celebration take?If it is not, what becomes of the art? To begin grappling with this question, it is worth exploring what a “celebration”of artworks by a morally compromised artist might entail, as well as what “excusing” the transgressions of the artist suggests. So, a necessary first step in drafting a coherent position on the question requires that you clearly define these operative terms in the Discussion Questions.
Does a “celebration” mean highlighting the artwork’s qualities in a museum display, theater brochure, album notes (or the like) in what could be characterized as a ‘whitewashed’ and neutral space, where nothing is mentioned about the artist’s (alleged) immoral and/or criminal conduct? Or, on the other extreme, should sufficient biographical detail about such transgressions be foregrounded in all publications associated with the artworks in question? There’s an array of possibilities here for “celebrating” artwork, ranging from: a) no mention at all of the controversy surrounding the artist; to b) including relatively minor qualifying footnotes about the artist’s problematic conduct; to c) a forthright spotlighting of the artwork’s “tainted” nature due to its association with a morally compromised creator; to d) refusing to showcase the work at all, but otherwise acknowledging the influence of the artist’s work in some less public format—which could also serve the purpose of financial divestment in the artist’s career or estate. (The issue of morally-compromised artists, or their patrons, continuing to profit from their work strikes many as a key factor in this question. This concern is especially relevant when, in spite of the seriousness of their transgression(s), artists or their patrons profit from the misconduct scandal itself.)
These forms of “celebration” will be more or less warranted, depending on the seriousness of the transgression and the nature of the relationship between artist and alleged “victim.” Are we talking a series of rape allegations by credible accusers or one isolated incident involving an off-color joke? The nature of the moral transgression matters for our judgment about how much, if any, “celebration” of an artist’s work is morally defensible, as does the credibility or character of the persons in question. These kinds of contextual details can range from morally significant to morally irrelevant for our examination of the tension between the merits of a piece of art and the reputation of its creator.
(A brief side note: some commenters on this issue like to pretend that artworks can be appreciated in a kind of pure aesthetic vacuum, where all details about the artwork’s creative context are completely irrelevant to the process of appreciation. I have trouble imagining such a space, and I doubt that in the real world anyone is truly capable of divorcing artwork from the biography of the artist(s) who made it or the cultural context to which it refers. This seems like an untenable position to defend since it contradicts everything we know about conscious perception or meaning making. If you aim to defend such an “art-stands-on-its-own” ideal, your team should be prepared to grapple with (non-straw person) counter-arguments that emphasize the inevitable overlap of our interpretations of art with moral and cultural norms—not to mention the scientific evidence on conscious associations and moral cognition.)
It might help to use a few contrasting examples of how producers or curators handled the “celebration” of artworks made by morally compromised artists to illustrate why a “one-size-fits-all” approach is insufficient. Which (if either) museum handled the Chuck Close controversy better and why—The National Gallery of Art in Washington or the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts? Did Netflix do the right thing by firing Kevin Spacey but continuing to make available the previous five seasons of House of Cards? In what sense is Netflix’s compromise a “celebration” of Spacey’s acting performance (not to mention the contributions of other actors and production staff)? Did Spotify make the right call to remove Bill Cosby and Louis C.K. from their Top-Ranked Comedy playlists?(a) You should illustrate your team’s position on Q-1 using such examples to draw important distinctions about the context or content of these artists’ work, as well as their moral transgressions and the resulting negative effects. We draw moral lines in the sand to protect vulnerable parties, as well as for other reasons that the judges (and the other team) should hear about. You need not be exhaustive with your supporting examples, but having some on hand that help illustrate your argument will significantly strengthen your position on this case. (And for some people, their judgments about censoring art to any degree will depend on the morally significant details of these examples. Choose wisely which examples best support your argument.)
A further factor to consider in defining what form a “celebration” might take is the degree of certainty the producers or curators of the artwork have about the alleged guilt of the artist. Keep at the forefront of your minds that the case description asks “…whether the work of […] artists accused of questionable conduct needs to be revisited or recontextualized [by those who curate the art]…even before a courtroom determined guilt” (my emphasis). The case cites various examples of alleged transgressors, each of which may have unique complications surrounding the allegations or varying trajectories in the courts’ attempts to establish the truth of the allegations. Moreover, for some examples noted (e.g., Piccasso, Louis C. K.) the individuals were never brought to trial, even though a range of negative consequences may have ensued (from severe to none). It would be wrong to overgeneralize too much about all such cases involving famous artists or producers accused or convicted of sexual misconduct. What these examples have in common is their shared status as famous artists whose work is either in the process of being “celebrated” in some form, being re-evaluated as a candidate for future “celebration,” or retrospectively being reconsidered as worthy of admiration and respect. Since “those who curate the art” are not judges or juries bound by formal rules of due process, nor are they privy to all of the relevant information that criminal courts might possess, their judgments should exhibit appropriate caution.
Ethics Bowl teams should consider how much certainty that producers, curators or the general public actually possess about the alleged transgressions of the artist in question, as available facts could vary widely. We know, too, that some accusations or conclusions made in the court of public opinion were later found to be unjustified.(b) As philosopher Ben Burgis points out regarding the example of sexual misconduct allegations made against filmmaker Woody Allen, the public’s access to the truth about the alleged misconduct that took place in private 30 years ago is limited (especially given that accounts by Allen and Mia Farrow’s adult children conflict significantly).(c) This puts our certainty about Allen’s guilt on more shaky footing than in cases where full confessions of guilt are available.
We also know that American police departments and legal institutions charged with investigating such cases have a mixed record, especially where sexual misconduct allegations come from women or minorities and involve figures in positions of power.(d) Furthermore, as the #MeToo movement has repeatedly emphasized, many sectors of the entertainment industry or art world have a very poor record of taking seriously the sexual misconduct allegations brought forward women actors, models, musicians or other artists, since the fields in which these artists work have been disproportionately controlled by men (who often are shielded by a patriarchal culture of male dominance still prevalent in their fields). Similar concerns have been raised on behalf of allegations brought forward by LGBTQ artists.(e)
Do these complications mean we can never have any degree of certainty? No. But there are a few starter questions to consider and guideposts to help you navigate the ethical swamp here. Should your team emphasize a strict innocent until proven guilty principle, and trust fully the investigative institutions or governing bodies to properly police and report such transgressions? Or should you take a more skeptical accounting of the available data on sexual misconduct allegations? Surely, it’s not the case that we know nothing about these records of sexual misconduct (i.e., total skepticism isn’t warranted). Equally likely is that some accounts or studies of these patterns of misconduct by famous artists are better than others (so you’ll need to cite available data from reputable sources). Our degree of certainty about allegations made against a given artist should track the quality of evidence supporting the victim’s claims, as well as the historical record of allegations within that institution or field of employment. When certainty is compromised, the strength of our convictions about the alleged guilt of the artist should be dialed down.(1)
Given all of these complications affecting our degree of certainty about the reporting or the investigation of sexual misconduct allegations, it might be wise to align your team’s position to reflect: a) any evidence of bias in a given case; b) what we know about the power dynamics involved in the artistic institutions in question; as well as c) the rights of all parties to due process and fair consideration of their grievances. Stronger positions will account for these bias concerns and varied records of institutional accountability. Ethics Bowl judges are also likely to favor positions on this case that are backed by reliable evidence, interpreted fairly and accurately, as well as those that are sensitive to the unique context of each example noted in the case description (or cited beyond the case description).
Question 2 (Q-2) asks you to consider, if a given body of artwork is “historically transformative and has produced an immeasurable amount of good for humanity,” then Does celebration of the art excuse the (possibly unrelated) transgression(s) of the artist? Again, if this is the moderator’s question for you, from the outset establish clear definitions of key words like “celebration,” “excuse,” and “unrelated” to make your team’s position coherent and well-grounded in shared assumptions.
The crux of this question, I think, can be restated as: Is it even possible to “celebrate” (award esteem and recognition to) an important body of artwork without sanctioning or minimizing the morally problematic actions of its creator? Depending on which definition of excuse one emphasizes, the implications of this question for the integrity of the art world and the moral climate of a society will be far-reaching: 1a: to make apology for, b: to try to remove blame from; 2: to forgive entirely or disregard as of trivial import : regard as excusable; 3a: to grant exemption or release to, b: to allow to leave; 4: to serve as excuse for : JUSTIFY.(i) One helpful exercise is to substitute for “excuse” in Q-2 each of these senses of the term in order to test your moral intuitions for each independently.
I don’t know about you, but, no matter which definition I substitute, if I were the victim of abuse perpetrated by such a monumentally important artist, the ongoing “celebration” of this artist’s work would feel like the harm I suffered was being minimized (or ignored altogether). Even more so if the artist’s creations were somehow offered up as some kind of moral compensation for the transgressive behavior in question. While it may not be sufficient to adopt such a personal point of view to address this question, it may be necessary to do so in order to grasp what it’s like to be a sexual abuse victim forever associated with the work of a famous artist. The best positions on Ethics Bowl cases will strive for clarity and objectivity without losing appreciation for what a personal perspective can reveal, morally speaking. What’s at stake for victims here is fundamentally personal in nature—i.e., their self-worth, dignity and ongoing agency—which requires what philosophers call intersubjectivity in order to apprehend. (You can’t have the same private experience as someone else, but our moral imaginations give us some access to others’ private experience because we, ourselves, have had similar or relatable experiences with which we come to grasp why the self-worth, dignity and ongoing agency of persons matter.) It should go without saying that this is equally true for artists who are falsely accused but whose reputation could be forever suspect once sexual misconduct allegations go public. Carefully appreciating the deeply personal consequences of these sexual misconduct cases will allow you to grapple with whatever sense of excuse is conveyed in Q-2.
There’s another tricky element involved in Q-2 (which is perhaps included by the case authors to test how closely you’re considering what is morally relevant in cases like this). The first sentence of Q-2 introduces the supposition of a work of art that “…is historically transformative and has produced an immeasurable amount of good for humanity—akin to a revolutionary advancement in technology or medicine.” To assess how much this matters, consider that the personal devastation alluded to in the paragraph above would be just as relevant for a sexual misconduct case involving a relatively unknown artist, no? Just as a court of law might determine that some evidence is irrelevant to the matter of establishing the defendant’s guilt, to fixate on the relation between the cultural impact of an artist’s creations and the determination of his or her alleged guilt would introduce a red herring. A celebrated artist who commits rape is still a rapist, and their fame is irrelevant to society’s assessment of their character or their crime. We can probably safely assume that their status as “celebrated” artists conveys some sense of worth projected onto their artwork (which is a safe assumption for the artists cited in the case description—i.e., they all were/are extremely talented, perhaps even “masters of their craft”).
But maybe some artist’s work is so stellar in quality that we could make a case that the artwork “excuses” transgressions of respect and decency, even violations of human rights. Perhaps, following a kind of utilitarian logic, you can imagine a “celebrated” novelist who has written a hugely-influential book about—among other things—sexual misconduct, which sells millions of copies and influences countless people to take these transgressions more seriously, as well as victim’s rights and testimonies more seriously. Imagine too that with all the public good that comes from this novel, it comes to light that the author is alleged to have “done research” by sexually harassing and abusing vulnerable people. Ramp up the stakes even more in your thought experiment: make her victims minors and the abuse allegations even more horrible. Whatever the circumstances, will there ever be a morally defensible calculation of maximized utility produced by the novel’s greatness that “excuses” such crimes? I’ll leave that for your team to ponder.
As noted earlier, “those who curate the art” are not judges or juries bound by courtroom procedures or a legal code of ethics. But in their capacity as the gatekeepers of the art world, many will argue that curators have a moral responsibility to respond to allegations—past or present—involving an artist they showcase in a manner that reflects the integrity of the institutions they represent, as well as the shared moral codes we collectively rely on to live with ourselves. (Few would argue that a curator must completely separate their own moral conscience entirely from their work.) This doesn’t mean that curators must themselves be moral role models, nor does it mean that their institution (museum, production company, media platform) must present itself as a guardian of public morals. But as gatekeepers with some degree of power and as members of a wider moral community, the quality of their response to the allegations will send a message about the seriousness of sexual misconduct anywhere in society. It will also send a message about their own institutional reputation (and perhaps even their personal character). Being indifferent to the scandal would also send a message, so that’s probably not an option for curators either. In short, a lot of real-world evidence suggests that the art world is never completely separate from the messy business of ethics, and that there is more at stake in these decisions than the institution’s stock value or financial endowment (although those may also be affected by a bungling of a sexual misconduct scandal).
The takeaway question here: Is it morally relevant how famous or great the art or artist is when determining whether a body of art could ever “excuse” a moral transgression like [most cases of] sexual misconduct? Again, wouldn’t the seriousness of the moral choice here be the same if the artist in question were relatively unknown? (A final note on this point: as noted earlier with Q-1, maybe what is morally relevant for this question is the credibility or seriousness of the allegation—as opposed to how great the art might be. Maybe your team is ready to conclude that a body of immensely influential and beneficial artwork is enough to “excuse”—overlook? counter-balance? make amends for?—one isolated minor accusation of sexual misconduct, thereby warranting no “art with asterisks” in a museum. On the other hand, maybe for most sexual misconduct cases—like those noted in the case description—your team may decide to prioritize the seriousness of the allegations over the work’s cultural or artistic significance, concluding that no great art can ever “excuse” moral transgressions of this kind.)
A related red herring that could stem from a careless reading of Q-2 would be to confuse an artist’s personal artistic mission vis-à-vis morality with the role of a curator’s moral responsibilities in showcasing the resulting art. Unlike last year’s Regional Case #14 “American Dirt,” Q-2 is not asking you if artists themselves should make art that is receptive to reasonable moral considerations; it is asking you to reflect on the moral responsibilities of curators who are in a position to “celebrate” in some form the work of an allegedly morally-compromised artist. There may be great art out there that is amoral in nature or arguably immoral in some respects, and is still worth curating or even “celebrating” in some capacity. The morality of the art produced in this case is a separate issue (as are discussions about the relation between the two). What is at issue here is what curators of art ought to consider when they decide—if they decide—to showcase a “celebrated” artist’s work whose moral character and conduct is, to varying degrees, implicated by a sexual misconduct scandal. In other words, don’t get sidetracked in your team’s position by the question of how much—if at all—morality should factor in the creation of art. This case is about the moral responsibilities of those curating art.
Q-3 of the case is What does it mean to display art “with an asterisk?” How much consideration should curators give to the psychological safety of art consumers? Since my case analysis is already fairly long, I’m going to leave this one to your team, trusting that you can apply the relevant considerations I raised above to prepare for this question.
Good luck in your preparations and on “Bowl Day”!
Footnotes:
(1) Given past discrimination against women and LGBTQ persons and—historically at least—the patriarchal bent of our artistic institutions, my own bias on this issue of reliability of sexual misconduct claims and investigations leads me to first give the benefit of doubt to reporters of abuse, as there is an established precedent in many entertainment fields of women and LGBTQ voices being unjustly discounted.(f) However, all of us are human and therefore susceptible to the same kinds of cognitive biases.(g) We’re learning more each year about the prevalence and reporting of sexual violence against women and gender minorities, and research on these trends shows that a variety of complicating factors are at play.(h)
(c) Burgis, Ben. “Separating the Art from the Artist: Woody Allen, Marilyn Manson, and George W. Bush.” Zero Books on YouTube, March 2, 2021, https://youtu.be/mk-iQ3Ca04s.
(h) Tjaden, Patricia Godeke, and Nancy Thoennes. “Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women.” (2000). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf.
One of ethics bowl’s many benefits is its power to expand our concern beyond our narrow self-interests. This guest essay by Ethics Bowl China founder, Leo Huang, explores how it can also foster a cosmopolitan attitude.
When we first started the Ethics Bowl in China, we envisioned two possible directions. One, reach out to high school students already interested in philosophy, ethics, or debates, and provide them yet another opportunity to discuss issues they might have encountered in debate tournaments, speech contests, and classrooms (although, unlike debate, Ethics Bowl stresses constructive discussion, as opposed to debate-like “crossfires”). Or what if we targeted those with no prior experience in debates, philosophy, or ethics, especially students from marginalized communities, from areas with less abundant educational resources? Wouldn’t the Ethics Bowl experience mean more to them? Admittedly, at that time, we took the first route, which was simply an easier path for an inaugural program looking for expansion and recognition.
As the program now nears its third year, the thought of reaching out to that second group returns. As we were pondering the plans and visions for the new season, we started asking ourselves: now that we are becoming familiar with the logistics of organizing large-scale programs and have reached some recognition within the country, does including students of that second group deviate from what we’ve been doing in the past years?
For students who have not encountered debate or philosophy, the Ethics Bowl, both in terms of its format and the issues discussed, would be quite an eye-opening experience. The Ethics Bowl will give them opportunities to discuss issues they might have never thought about, with people they have never encountered, who might hold completely unexpected perspectives. Simply put, for them, the Ethics Bowl opens minds.
But isn’t that the same for those students who do have some experience in debate, philosophy, or ethics? It seems unfair to say that because of their experience and knowledge, they won’t need any “mind-opening.” After all, don’t we all make judgments according to our own sets of values and beliefs? Can one claim to have considered all the possible perspectives of an issue, and to have made judgments without a single bias? It seems unlikely. Or that might not even be theoretically possible, depending on how we define “bias.”
Thus regardless of which group of students we target, the ultimate goal seems to be the same – to open minds, to broaden our concerns, and to understand multiple perspectives. And that is more so if we do the Ethics Bowl not just in our own community, but in a much larger one – an international Ethics Bowl community.
In an international community where each of us comes from widely different backgrounds, it’s even more difficult to claim that we are still able to be as comprehensive in our considerations as we are in smaller communities. There’s an interesting short story by O. Henry that features a “cosmopolite” who claims to be “a citizen of the world,” bragging about his life spending time all around the globe, as if he’s “impartial to cities, countries and continents as the winds or gravitation,” while in the end, ironically, he “got hot on account of things said about the bum sidewalks and water supply of the place he comes from.”
To become a “global citizen” is indeed an honorable goal, but it isn’t as easy as it appears – reading “global news” on social media is one way, though it doesn’t seem enough, if we consider the nature of news reporting. So the Ethics Bowl might be one way to further this cause. Within the carefully designed collaborative and constructive framework of the Ethics Bowl, we discuss issues that truly address global differences, and hear from peers from a variety of backgrounds, articulating their positions authentically and spontaneously with an appreciation for diverse points of views.
Recall from Ethics in aNutshell chapter 4 (review it on the Resources page here) differences between morality and legality. Good law tracks morality, but doesn’t establish or guarantee it. Just consider laws legalizing slavery or outlawing educating women. Surely it was immoral to enslave humans even when it was legal in the past. Surely it’s moral to educate women even where it’s illegal today.
Even meta-laws, such as a country’s constitution, aren’t a strong foundation for a moral argument. Your position is supported by the US Constitution? That’s cool. Did you know that document implicitly endorses slavery in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3? Legal rights claims are tempting, and common, and would be very appropriate in a courtroom. But in an ethics bowl (or ethics paper), they signal that your analysis didn’t go very deep.
Human rights, which some claim exist prior to and even in the absence of a legal framework, are a little better. But not much. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights contains a collection of admirable, aspirational protections. But they’re all prone the same error. Check out the UDHR’s supposed inalienable human right to “periodic holidays with pay” (Article 24). A pre-legal, universal human right to paid holidays? Really? A case can be made that a life without leisure isn’t very fun. But a case can also be made that this doesn’t rise to the level of an inalienable protection naturally enjoyed by all humans, especially the “paid” part.
In addition to being fallible human artifacts, notice how even the language of rights impedes discussion. Rights suggest an all-or-nothing, on/off, absolute nature precluding balance and care, which does more harm than good when trying to think through a tough issue.
For example, if I claim a right to bear arms and you claim a right to public safety, and you think this supposed “right” to public safety is incompatible with private citizens owning arms, we’re at an impasse. The same is true when discussing abortion. If one person asserts a right to life and another a right to control their body, we’re (unnecessarily) stuck.
Invoking rights pretends an issue is fully settled and clear in light of some dominant ethical claim, and that one consideration (the asserted, favored right) dwarfs all others, when that’s simply not the case. Smart human rights theorists usually tie their claims to some fundamental human interest, which helps. But why not avoid the problematic language of rights altogether? It’s too coarse, too oversimplified, and not nearly nuanced enough for careful ethical analysis, including ethics bowl case analysis.
And if your gut’s telling you there’s some strong interest or overriding reason in play, explore the “why” behind it. Rather than ignoring rights claims, use them as clues. It’s far better to unpack the supporting reasons (if any can be found), examine and craft them into a transparent argument, than to invoke the lazy shorthand of rights.
