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.
Yes. Thanks to ethics bowl pioneers at UC Santa Cruz, including our friend Kyle Robertson, and judged by none other than original ethics bowl founder Bob Ladenson.
This is amazing, and so encouraging. Thanks to everyone involved, including the very well-prepared and eloquent team from San Quentin Prison.
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 11/5/20EB Case #7. The Korean Pop Industrial Complex
Today’s Discussion Topic: Do listeners have a moralobligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated? Is the entertainment industry inherently exploitative?
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):
Do listeners have a moral obligation to stop supporting the K-Pop industry if they know that performers are mistreated?
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?
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:
(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.
(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.”
(Article) “Exploitation | The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy” “To exploit someone isto 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….”
(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.
(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.
(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?”
(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?”
(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.”
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.
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 😉
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.
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?
As case 13 explains, not all people who use the divisive catchphrase, “defund the police” actually want to abolish police departments. Some do. But many simply want to divert some funds to education, employment, social work and mental health resources. Why? Studies have shown that educational and employment equity better decreases crime. A better educated populace would intuitively be happier, more successful and therefore more law-abiding. And while cutting police budgets might give departments good reason to behave, it might also be a good idea to keep a few cops around.
However, case 13 doesn’t say much about reforming policing techniques and attitudes, which opens an opportunity for ethics bowlers to add something to the discussion. Many police forces take an overly militaristic approach to their work inappropriate for civilian policing, one that can unnecessarily escalate encounters and perpetuate a contentious culture.
Or so argues former police officer turned University of South Carolina law professor Seth Stoughton. Below is Stoughton’s TED talk on just that subject, followed by my own take on his argument. I’ll be discussing it with my ethics bowl team this weekend, and also sharing the TED vid from 0:15 – 2:17 and 10:00 – 12:30. Enjoy!
Article example – analysis of “zingers” from a presidential primary debate.
I recently met author and educational consultant Jonathan Haber at the American Philosophical Association’s annual Eastern Division meeting. Having just presented on how ethics bowl enthusiasts have leveraged the web (team collaboration, volunteer registration, awesome blogs), Haber asked me and the other panelists about ways to encourage journalists to improve the quality of their inferences.
As he explained, media-types are used to fact checking. But many feel unqualified, and possibly a little defensive, about logic checking. This is why he set up LogicCheck.net, a website devoted to helping journalists improve the quality of their reasoning. The tagline: Check the Facts. Understand the Argument. Know the Truth.
I suggested highlighting examples of well-reasoned journalism and possibly adding a gentle rating system. The examples could serve as models. And the ratings could encourage journalists to review their inferences before clicking “publish.”
Well, I was pleased to receive a message from Haber this week that he had featured a well-argued editorial by Houston Chronicle staff and awarded it “five dumbbells” as an especially strong argument.
Titled, “Purge of Trump, Parler Show Big Tech Firms Have Too Much Power,” the Chronicle’s argument is indeed evenhanded and reasonable. As Haber points out, the authors don’t marginalize the legitimate values in tension: freedom of expression vs. safety, stability and truth. Their proposed solution (putting more responsibility on platforms, authors and communities to self-monitor, with some light government oversight) follows well enough rom the premises. And it’s both measured and respectfully offered.
Written in the mature, civil style of philosophers at their best, it’s indeed a fine example of a quality argument. Kudos to the Houston Chronicle for their responsible journalism, and kudos to Haber and LogicCheck.net for featuring it. Check out the article and analysis for yourself here.
While you’re there, peruse the site, see what you might learn under Argumentation, More -> Fallacies or Logic-Checker.
Now, who’s the former ethics bowler writing for the Chronicle?
In response to COVID-related bowl cancellations, two ambitious students in New York recently launched the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals. Press release below – kudos to Isabelle and Holly for taking the initiative! Check it out yourself at eethicsbowl.com.
We formed NEEBI, the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals, to create a national student-led club where any student in the country can participate in our essay contests, or attend our zoom events to talk about ethics issues, or even do some informal ethics debating. We were very motivated to make friends throughout the country who, like us, love ethics.
There are so many divisions in our country, and it was our hope that a national student ethics club would be a great way to create student unity, and get students talking to each other about important issues in a fun way, and enjoying each other’s company.
In addition to our essay contests and zoom meetings, we plan to start a “Bulletin Board” page listing different ethics events coming up during the year in different schools, organizations and universities so that there is one “go-to” place for high school students looking for ethics-activities, especially summer experiences and courses. We are also considering a “Congratulations” page to celebrate winners in the Ethics community of different events if students wish to send in their accomplishments. Finally, we would love for other students to form chapters of NEEBI in their geographic regions, and we can recognize those Chapter Leaders on our website with their names and bios and advertise their separate meeting dates.
We feel that philosophy is a great unifier, leads to critical thinking, and should be invested in at high schools. It is our greatest hope to reach students who do not have Ethics Clubs in their own schools to give them more opportunities to meet and to debate ethical issues informally and with new friends everywhere. – Isabelle Friedberg and Holly Hanlon
My friend Jamey spent a total of 6 years in prison. Today he’s free and thriving. And just a few months ago, he got married. I asked him to review NHSEB case 10, Dating After Prison. What were his thoughts?
Boxing teammate and friend Jamey with wife Peyton
A natural athlete, Jamey had been a star running back in elementary school. He was fast. Scary fast. “Who’s that little white blur?” fast.
Then in the 7th grade he developed chronic knee pain. No longer the fastest, his popularity and self-esteem took a hit, and he turned to substance abuse.
A couple of years into high school his knees were better, but the bad habits remained. He switched to a vocational track to graduate, and played well enough to earn a football scholarship. It was in college that Jamey got his first opportunity to sell drugs. He found that he was naturally good at that, too.
A drug dealer’s life doesn’t mesh well with the demands of higher education. And when the college experiment failed, the downward spiral accelerated. Jail time became prison time, and winning $50k from a scratch-off lottery ticket just made things worse.
Jamey was a teammate, mentor and coach at my boxing gym, Monroe County Boxing Club. He taught me how to not to not be “a moving punching bag,” how to use my endurance as a weapon, and how to push my body into beastmode and beyond.
When we met, he’d already done significant time behind bars. And while boxing kept him straight for a while, he relapsed and found himself in trouble with the law once again. The judge gave him the option to either go back to prison or to Miracle Lake, a rustic Christin rehab facility near Etowah, Tennessee. Jamey took the chance, and the experience changed his life.
He’s been clean and straight ever since, and this summer my family attended a beautiful outdoor wedding where he wed his soulmate, Petyon. I remember when Jamey and Peyton first began dating, and I was there when he proposed during intermission at the annual Monroe County Boxing Club Rumble. So when I read case 10, he immediately came to mind.
He agreed to discuss it, and explained that when he graduated from Miracle Lake and thought about dating again, he wanted to be as transparent as possible about his past.
So he shared his background on his Facebook page, regularly posting about the dark places he’d been, and how much better life was on the other side. He would also share his testimony at church, which is where he and Peyton met. As Jamey put it, “I didn’t want anyone to feel deceived. I wanted to be accepted for who I was.”
However, while he wanted church friends and love interests to know as soon as possible, he didn’t think disclosing his prison time was as important for casual friendships (see ethics bowl case discussion question #3).
“About the friendship thing, that’s not as important to reveal right up front… You wouldn’t want her to find out and feel misled. But with dudes, it may not even come up for a long time. But Peyton, she knew everything. I feel that was important.”
In contrasting the gentlemen in the ethics bowl case (Antoine and Jack – see discussion question #2), Jamey thought they were clearly different. “There’s definitely a moral difference due to the type of crime and their time in prison. One was innocent, the other admitted it.”
Jamey argued that the differing amount of time served by Antoine and Jack – Antoine, 8 years, and Jack, 27– was especially relevant.
“The longer you’re in there, away from society, the more of a criminal mind you could have. Not everyone, but someone doing that much time is definitely going to be different. Their frame of mind – someone doing that much time – it becomes truly institutionalized.”
The implication seems to be that a person would have a stronger obligation to reveal their prison time sooner when a) they were guilty, b) their crime was violent and c) lengthy prison time had altered their character in negative ways. These are all things a potential life partner would want to know. And so Jamey argues they’re better to share immediately in the interests of building trust.
However, Sequoyah High School Ethics Bowl team member Juli Brackett argues sharing prison time could and should wait until the third date. Why date #3?
First dates are often shallow chit-chat. Second dates, when they happen, suggest agreement that there’s long-term potential. But by the third date, it’s clear both parties are open to a serious commitment. The emotional attachment approaches an unspoken but significant threshold. And that’s when someone who’s been to prison should disclose it, argues Juli.
Why not share it on or before date #1? Juli argues this could sabotage what could become a beautiful happily-ever-after. If everyone shared their darkest secrets up-front, no one would get married. Waiting puts both parties in a better position to put past mistakes into context.
The up-front approach worked for Jamey. But maybe he was especially charming. Or maybe the fact that he and Peyton met at church reassured her he was a changed man.
Whether Juli’s or Jamey’s approach is morally best is arguable. But three factors that seem unarguably relevant: 1) whether the person was guilty, 2) the nature of their crime, and 3) time served and its impact on their character.
