Posts

Posted on

How Much Land is it Ethical to Own? A Lockean Guest Analysis

This guest post is by Isabelle Friedberg of the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals, a student-run, fully online ethics bowl platform. EthicsBowl.org welcomes guest case analyses, coaching tips and other posts – reach out via the Contact page if you’d like to contribute.

Bill Gates is the largest private owner of farmland in the United States. According to news reports, he owns 268,984 acres of farmland, across 19 states in the country. His farmland portfolio totals more than $690 million in value. For comparison, the amount of United States farmland purchased by Gates is approximately the size of Hong Kong. Although there is a corporate entity purchasing the land, neither Gates nor his agents have explained the purpose of buying so much farmland, much of it very valuable and nutrient-rich. Some speculate that Gates’ climate concerns may drive his interest, especially since farming and ranching contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Other perspectives are that there is no explicit purpose, he is just diversifying his financial portfolio, which he has a right to do. 

Although Gates owns the most farmland, he is not the largest U.S. landowner. Billionaire John Malone, the former CEO of Liberty Media, is in the number one position, and owns approximately 2.2 million acres of land, roughly twice the size of Rhode Island. Ted Turner owns 2 million acres. Jeff Bezos ranks 25th for private landowners, above Gates, and the famous Ford, Hearst, Koch and Reynolds families all rank in the top 100 landowners. 

These patterns, of individuals in unique positions of wealth, buying and privately owning extensive parcels of U.S. land, including valuable, irreplaceable farmland, raises the philosophical question of whether it is ethical for one person, even if they have the unusual resources to do so, to individually possess so much of the earth itself. In looking for ethical answers, a good place to start is John Locke’s Two Treatises on Civil Government. In the work, Locke, the English philosopher considered to be the father of the  Enlightenment, who made important contributions to the development of liberalism, makes several arguments relating to the ethical ownership of property. Locke believes that a person may only appropriate as much property as one needs or can use to continue life. (Two Treatises 2.31). He also believes one must leave “enough and as good” for others. (Two Treatises 2.27). 

Looking at billionaire land purchases from a Lockean perspective, it is arguable that he individuals have exceeded the amount of land that they ethically should be able to accumulate. We can assume from their publicized wealth, that they don’t actually need the land to continue their lives in a reasonable way and exist soundly in nature. In a world of finite resources and limited land itself, large purchases, especially of valuable soil-rich lands that can be used for growing, runs contrary to the Lockean idea of leaving “enough and as good” for others. 

Other concerns above the ideological ones, are the practical ones in allowing such extensive ownership. What if private landholders choose to use their purchases unethically? Could the purchases ever result in more limited food supply for others? Should several individuals get to make large decisions about land-use for a global world? The ethical dilemmas raised here are important questions to think about in an ever-changing world.

Posted on

Judging an International Ethics Olympiad Final… After Midnight

Organizing an ethics competition is no easy feat. There are coaches, judges and moderators to recruit, venues to book, schedules to set, questions to finalize. People need training. Trophies need ordering. Everyone needs reminding. Doing it all online is easier in some ways, but tougher in others.

July 2021 Olympiad Final Crowd

This is exactly what Matthew Wills has been pulling off on a consistent basis with Australia’s Ethics Olympiad, only he’s shouldering the additional burden of working with people in different countries, on different continents, across different time zones – sometimes radically different time zones.

Two Thursdays ago, I experienced an Olympiad firsthand as a judge. From the comfort of my home office in Tennessee, I had the pleasure of discussing dating after prison, defunding the police, and Netflix’s Tiger King with teams in Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. The participant diversity was striking, even among the Australian teams – one, an all-girls Catholic school; another, an agricultural school. All were well-prepared, the discussions highbrow, the scoresheets close – comparable to many of the best teams in the States.

While other events struggled to transition from on-site to online bowling, Ethics Olympiad has thrived. One secret to its success is that Matthew brilliantly reduced the number of judges/moderators needed for each heat from four people to one. How? By empowering a single person to simultaneously moderate and handle all judging.

I’ve been an organizer, a coach, a judge and a moderator. But I’ve never been more than one at a time, so this was intimidating. Even more concerning was the fact that the event would begin at 9 pm Tennessee time, and end just before 1 a.m. However, two accommodations that made late-night judging/moderating completely doable:

  1. An app that handled the coin flip, the timing, displayed the cases and questions – all I had to do was share my screen and click. I’m of course familiar with Ethics Bowl/Olympiad procedures. But man, the app made everything super simple – with fifteen minutes’ practice, a complete rookie could have been fine.
  2. Matthew worked with ethics professors beforehand to provide judges extra questions to explore during the Q&A portion of each match. I always prefer to engage the teams on the specifics of what they’ve argued, and didn’t need any help thinking of something to ask in rounds 1 and 2. But a backup question or two came in handy later in the evening as my other-side-of-the-globe-past-my-bedtime-brain began to fade.

These assists were welcome, but no real surprise. Matthew’s been coordinating online Ethics Bowls/Olympiads for teams in different time zones and on different continents for at least a decade – long before the pandemic forced the rest of us to go virtual. And that experience shows.

He even conceded at the opening of the event that his home internet had went down a mere hour before kickoff, and that he was joining – and running the entire show – using a cellphone hotspot. He shared afterwards how this had induced minor panic, which, as a former organizer, I can definitely appreciate. But from my seat, he was as cool as ever.

If you ever get the chance to join an Olympiad (in any capacity), definitely give it a try. Mathew even offers judge/moderators a modest stipend, something that likely improves their buy-in, preparedness and reliability. Most of us in the community would support even a poorly-run event. But it’s the little things that make an ethics competition especially enjoyable, and our friends down under are pioneering improvements I’m hoping others will give a try.

P.S. Parts of Australia recently went back on COVID lockdown, which meant several teams had to unexpectedly join individually from their homes. There was a chance that some would choose to deliberate openly – discussing how to answer the initial question, comment on and respond to commentary from the other team for all to hear, rather than in private. I thought this might be a cool experiment – to see if teams discussing their strategies and responses live, on-air, might make the atmosphere more… deliberative. (A NHSEB case committee member recently shared the worry that some Bowls are devolving into “glorified debate” – a concern I share.) Alas, in each of the rounds I moderated/judged, the teams found ways to deliberate privately, connecting via a separate live video chat during the conferral periods. But if any teams did discuss openly, or if any events have tested this separately, please shoot me an email – would love to know how it went. For the further we can distinguish ourselves from the posturing and strategizing of traditional debate, the more transformative Ethics Olympiad and Ethics Bowl can be. And the more successful we are in that regard, the stronger the benefits not only for participants, but democracy, which is why most of us are here. The atmosphere at the Olympiad was laudable for sure – Matthew does a good job setting expectations, leading by example, and recruiting the right folks.

Posted on

Philosophy Summer Camp for High School Students

PSU

Host of the Oregon High School Ethics Bowl, Portland State University, is offering a Philosophy Summer Camp for high school students from August 2-13.

Made possible by their annual Day of Giving campaign, graduates will receive college credit. And since it will mostly take place over Zoom (with a philosophy-related field trip), they’re opening it up to students across the country.

According to program coordinator Professor Alex Sager, “We are offering a reduced tuition rate of $220, as well as offering generous scholarships to qualifying students… The deadline to apply is July 16th. Applicants should send me (asager@pdx.edu) the following information:

Name
Best Contact Info
High School
Grade in fall 2021
GPA
300-500 word statement on why you are interested in attending the philosophy summer camp.”

Posted on

NHSEB Finals Watch Party

I’ve said for years that if ESPN is willing to air spelling bees and poker tournaments, surely there’s an audience for ethics bowl. Well, the good folks at UNC’s Parr Center have taken it upon themselves to livestream the NHSEB! So let’s put that theory to the test.

If you’re online this weekend, check out the “Spectator Portal” links here and let us know what you think. In the future, I’m envisioning Joe Rogan and maybe Andrew Yang providing live commentary. But for now, chat discussion, when available, will have to suffice. Enjoy! And here’s to hoping IEB, Ethics Olympiad and other formats offer something similar soon.

Posted on

More Abortion Cases, Please

People are reluctant to discuss abortion for three main reasons: 1) our views on abortion are often entangled with our political and religious allegiances, and therefore our very identities. 2) Deep down, we know sweeping pro-this or pro-that positions are grossly oversimplified and subject to criticism. And 3) 1 combined with 2 leads to insecurity, rationalizations and hostile denialism, even among the most enlightened. Our culture pretends we have to be either generally for or against abortion – sophistication and nuance aren’t allowed. So we sheepishly align with one camp or the other, saving our influence for safer topics.

But as as ethics bowlers, we know better. We know abortion is a complicated issue with competing legitimate values, requiring careful examination and balance. We know the pro-vs-pro dilemma is a sad political artifact. We know our culture can and should do better, and that we have the power to lead it out of the current corrosive impasse.

It’s past time the ethics bowling community tackled abortion head-on. If any group can destigmatize and enrich abortion ethics discussion, it’s us. So case-writing committees, do your thing, please.

A preview of my new abortion ethics book is below. If you’re a case-writer, coach or competitor inspired to dig deeper, please let me know how I can help. Let’s bring our collective wisdom and thoughtfulness to bear on this most divisive of issues. Let’s help the world begin to treat abortion with the honesty and care it deserves.

Posted on

Expanded Case Analysis Example: K-Pop

EthicsBowl.org contributor, ethics bowl coach and judge, Michael Andersen, recently shared several examples of expanded case analysis worksheets he creates for his team (a lucky team indeed!). The format: generate interest with engaging media, share the case as originally presented, consider tweaked discussion questions, offer bonus research resources, and close out by connecting the current case to related cases. I think it’s a marvelous approach, and thank Michael for his permission to share an example with our readers. If you have your own coaching tips or resource samples to share with the community, we’d be happy to feature them. Just reach out to matt (at) mattdeaton.com, or use the contact form at MattDeaton.com. Thanks as always, Michael!

Ethics Club 11/5/20 EB Case #7. The Korean Pop Industrial Complex

Today’s Discussion Topic: ​Do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated? Is the entertainment industry inherently exploitative?

Pre-Discussion Resources:

2020-21 Regional Ethics Bowl Case #7. The Korean Pop Industrial Complex

Within the past decade, Korean Pop, more commonly known as K-Pop, has rapidly become a global sensation. South Korean artists have hit the Billboard Hot 100 chart at least eight times. In 2019, BTS became the first K-Pop group to be nominated for a Grammy. Adored due to its distinctive blend of catchy tunes, clean choreography, and glamorous idols, the K-Pop industry has grown along with the rise of Hallyu, a Chinese term which describes the popularity of South Korean culture internationally.1 Via Korean pop, drama, skincare regimens, and more, South Korea has become a fixture in popular culture worldwide.2

In an increasingly globalized society, many think that the rise of K-Pop is a force of moral good. Cultural globalization allows people from all parts of the world to understand one another and appreciate different ideas, meanings, and values. In turn, this enables the ability to empathize and relate to others, no matter where they are from. K-Pop is also a way for South Korea to develop its “soft power”, which describes the “intangible power a country wields through its image, rather than through hard force,” such as military or economic power.3

However, for K-Pop performers, the journey to fame is a grueling one. Stories of tired performers putting up a happy front to excitedly greet fans is not uncommon in an industry where exploitative contracts, demanding beauty ideals, and even human rights violations are mainstay. K-Pop performers work long hours which go largely undercompensated, as the money their content earns is often funneled back into corporate hands or toward chipping away at looming debt.4 Plastic surgery, too, is an open secret in the industry.5 Many trainees are expected to go under the knife, with the most common procedures designed to achieve highly-coveted features like double eyelids or a straighter nose. Of additional concern, sexual exploitation is a quiet phenomenon and a common truth for women in Korean entertainment. Young performers are often taken advantage of by power brokers behind closed doors. In a culture which often stigmatizes sexuality, these scandals are obscured from public view.6 Moreover, the K-Pop industry exists to meet and cater to the demands of a hungry fanbase, who are consistently starved for new content. Fans are often criticized for propagating a system which treats its artists poorly.

Still, many assert that K-Pop is a net good. Although the exploitative habits of the industry are suspect, performers voluntarily enter their contracts. Additionally, Korean culture emphasizes work ethic. According to the OECD, “South Koreans work more hours per week on average than all but one other country, and almost 50% more than famously industrious Germany.”7 To criticize the K-Pop industry based on the dedication of performers, some argue, would be inconsiderate of differing cultural values..

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: ​(Slightly modified and extended from ​original Qs​)​:

  1. Do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated?
  2. a) If people voluntarily enter contracts, does it matter that the terms of the contract are exploitative or otherwise unethical? b) How can we distinguish between coercion and voluntary agreement?
  3. a) Is the entertainment industry inherently exploitative? b) How should we decide if working conditions should be properly described as “exploitative” and therefore morally impermissible?

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study:

  1. (Video) “​The Late Capitalism of K-Pop​” @ Jonas Čeika – CCK Philosophy.​[17:33] While I was not able to find any biographical details of this video essayist with an admittedly leftist bent, his analysis of the K-Pop industrial complex in Korea presents some helpful historical and philosophical context. In this notes for the video, he cites his sources as well as corrections to the script since the publication of the video in 2017–a signifier of some intellectual credibility, at least.
  2. (Video) “​Does Capitalism Exploit Workers?​” @ Libertarianism.org. [6:07] ​For a contrary view to the video above (although not focused on the K-Pop context), U. San Diego Philosophy Prof. Matt Zwolinski explains why capitalism actually tends to protect workers’ interests. “The idea that capitalism exploits workers stems from Karl Marx’s work in the late 1800s. Although the definition of “exploitation” has changed since then, many still believe capitalist systems take advantage of vulnerable workers. …Zwolinski contends that even if it were exploitative, increasing political regulation and control would actually make the problem worse. Increases in government make citizens more vulnerable to the state.”
  3. (Article) “​Exploitation | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy​” ​“​To exploit someone is​to take unfair advantage of them. It is to use another person’s vulnerability for one’s own benefit. Of course, benefiting from another’s vulnerability is not always morally wrong—we do not condemn a chess player for exploiting a weakness in his opponent’s defense, for instance. But some forms of advantage-taking do seem to be clearly wrong, and it is this normative sense of exploitation that is of primary interest to moral and political philosophers….”
  4. (Video) “​What is Consent?: Consent #1 – Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY​” ​[6:50] What is consent? In this Wireless Philosophy video, Prof. Tom Dougherty (University of Cambridge) considers the nature of consent and its relationship to morality, rights, and harm.
  5. (Video) “​Consent and Rights: Consent #2 – Ethics | WIRELESS PHILOSOPHY​” ​[7:53] In this Wireless Philosophy video, Prof. Tom Dougherty (University of Cambridge) continues his exploration of the nature of consent and its relationship to morality, rights, and harm.
  6. (Article) “​Exploding the myths behind K-pop | Bright and irresistible, K-pop provides the beat to South Korea’s youth culture. But behind the perfect smiles and dance routines are tales of sexism and abuse​.” By Crystal Tai, The Guardian​, Sun 29 Mar 2020.
  7. (Article) “​A**holes, job dependency, and intimacy: 3 reasons it’s hard to end harassment in Hollywood | The way the film and TV industries are structured makes them a breeding ground for abuse​.” By Emily VanDerWerff, ​Vox​, Nov 17, 2017.
  8. (Article) “​Sexual Abuse in the Entertainment Industry.​” @ NWG Network, Oct 23, 2017.

Related Ethics Bowl Cases:

  1. (Related Ethics Bowl Case) ​2014-15 National EB Case #2: Ethical Consumerism​“Maria wonders whether it is morally acceptable to buy cheap products manufactured by people working for low wages in bad conditions. Are we morally obligated to ensure that none of our actions indirectly harm others?”
  2. (Related Ethics Bowl Case) ​2015-16 National Case #2: Prison Work​​“Many states make use of work prisons where prisoners “volunteer” to work and then receive a wage. Does this constitute exploitation of prisoners or is it necessary to reduce the high cost of the criminal justice system and help prisoners gain work skills? Is it ethical for a private company to pay workers in prison less than workers outside prison? Is it ethical for private companies to earn a profit from prison labor?”
  3. (Related Ethics Bowl Case) ​2014-2015 National Case #6. NFL Fandom​​“Is being a fan of the NFL football morally defensible? Critics state the NFL treats players as faceless commodities, and football is a potentially dangerous and degrading activity. Supporters stress the importance of players’ consent.”
Posted on

Critical Thinking and Ethics

I’d like to thank Matt Deaton for introducing me to Ethics Bowl at this year’s American Philosophical Association (APA) Eastern Division conference. 

Given my own mission to help students (of any age) develop their critical-thinking skills (through books like Critical Thinking from MIT Press and my LogicCheck site that uses the news of the day to teach critical-thinking techniques) I’m drawn to situations where facts alone cannot provide answers on what to do.

In situations when we have to decide what to do in the future, we can’t fact-check things that haven’t happened yet, but we can argue over which choice to make. We can also never know with certainty what is going on inside other people’s heads, which requires us to argue over motives and motivations, rather than claim to know them without doubt.  

Similarly, only the most trivial ethical dilemmas can be resolved by appealing to facts of the matter.  For the kind of complex dilemmas we face in the real world, such as those students grapple with when they participate in Ethics Bowl, we need to argue things out.  And arguing well is what you learn by studying critical thinking.

With that in mind, I was inspired to start a series over at LogicCheck that applies different critical-thinking principles to specific cases in this year’s Ethics Bowl national case set.  The first looks at how the ability to peer through persuasive language (commonly referred to as rhetoric) to see through wording that might pre-suppose an answer to a problem.  A second piece shows how hidden premises, statements implied but not stated in arguments, often contain the most important points we are need to discuss. 

I hope to continue this series by looking at other cases in light of the critical-thinker’s toolkit that involves skills such as controlling for bias and media and information literacy.  In each of these postings, I will endeavor to introduce students to productive ways of thinking about ethical issues and avoid telling them what to think about them.

So thanks again to Matt for letting me post here at his Ethics Bowl site.  Thanks as well to everyone involved with this fantastic program, and to all the students and teachers participating in it.

Happy deliberating!

~Jonathan Haber~

Posted on

Possibly The First Ever Ethics Bowl Rap

a sampling of the Michigan HSEB spirit

Imagine a Zoom room filled with bobbing heads, shaking shoulders and “roof raising” hands.

Imagine “DJ DeLay” hyping the crowd, passing the mic from ethics bowl coaches to judges to team captains and back.

Imagine fresh 80s tunes pumpin’ in the background.

And imagine U-M Philosophy Outreach Coordinator Adam Anderson Waggoner stealing the show with a custom Michigan High School Ethics Bowl kickoff rap.

Hey Jeanine, Hey Jeanine, U of M Philosophy loves the ethics bowl scene! It gives us inspiration for our academic dreams.

The questions, the insights, analysis of cases – your work is the reason for the smiles on our faces.

Everyone is showing that the ethics keeps them flowing. No matter where you go, you know we will keep it goin’.

And I want to thank all the dedicated coaches, for all your hours spent, and for all your new approaches. The way you make a difference is amazing – please know this.

So now I’ll pass the mic right back to Jeanine, so we can hear some words from these excellent teams.

What an awesome way to begin a weekend of ethics bowling! As DJ DeLay put it, an event “dedicated to everyone around the world working for health and education, dignity and justice… and philosophy for all.”

All I have to say is…. Aint no party like a Michigan HSEB party cause a Michigan HSEB party don’t stop! Keep doin’ yo think, A2Ethics and DJ DeLay 😉

Posted on

NHSEBOne Regionals Debrief

Virtual bowling was definitely different. On the plus side, we didn’t have to get up as early, got home sooner, and could dress casually from the waist down. On the downside, technology! Awesome when it works. Maddening when it doesn’t.

zoom image

However, we persevered. Despite bandwidth issues, system crashes, barking dogs and FedEx deliveries, rounds proceeded per usual. Tough issues were thoughtfully discussed. Minds were expanded. Civility was modeled. And ultimately, regional champions were crowned.

Was the NHSEBOne format perfect? No. But having used it to both judge (Texas and New York / New Jersey HSEBs) and coach (Tennessee HSEB) over past week, it was pretty darn good. The only constructive suggestion I can think of – add phone numbers to the Zoom rooms so participants can call in when all else fails. Because sometimes, all else fails.

Overall, I liked it, as well as the similar Zoom-based platform used by the Michigan HSEB. So much so that regardless of whether and when Covid subsides, I encourage regional bowl organizers to retain the opportunity for judges, teams and even moderators to participate remotely. There’s no way I would have flown to Long Island or Tyler (Texas) or Ann Arbor to judge those events. Yet it was awesome to connect with ethically-minded leaders in those communities. We all know there are thoughtful folks out there somewhere considering the same issues, thinking through the same discussion questions, enjoying the same “anti-debate” format. But prior to the pandemic, apart from the regional champs at UNC, we rarely interacted.

Being able to collaborate and share talents across time zones has the potential to synergize the bowling community’s impact in ways disjointed bowling never could. So here’s my vote to find ways to keep it up, pandemic or not, temporary system crashes or not.

What were your own experiences remote bowling? What went well? What are your ideas for making the next event even better?