Tag: NHSEB

Posted on

Kicking Off the Season with New Cases, New Studio Times & New AAPAE Champions

Happy fall! With the 2023-2024 season fully underway, here are three important updates.

  1. The NHSEB case pool is live here. Favorites include #1 on generative AI (my second favorite issue), #4 on Canada’s recent move to freeze the finances of certain protestors (PM Trudeau sparking considerable debate), and #5 on the morality of cruelty in video games (which is very likely to lead to callousness in the real world).
  2. Per a recent email from our friends at UNC’s Parr Center and the National High School Ethics Bowl, “NHSEBAcademy’s popular Studio Hours program has been revamped and now offers on-demand appointments every day of the week and across multiple time zones.” Session foci range from case brainstorming to presentation consultation to commentary workshops to judge Q&A practice. Live, on-demand, free coaching on the core components of Ethics Bowling? That’s hard to beat. If you’re coaching a team or on a team, book some free studio time here. A big thank you to our friends at Parr for offering such a helpful and generous resource.
  3. The first-ever Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics (AAPAE) Tertiary Ethics Olympiad (comparable to the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl sponsored by America’s Association for Practical and Professional Ethics) was held earlier this week. Australian National University took the Gold and Bronze medals, and Macquarie University the silver. Congrats to them as well as honorable mention winners at the University of Melbourne and Monash University. And thanks to multiple time zone international organizer extraordinaire, Matthew Wills, for the invitation to judge. It’s always a pleasure. Even when my mid-40s brain gets a little tired after midnight 😉 Group photo below.
Posted on

Bookable Scrimmages Now Live

As promised, the NHSEBAcademy Studio recently began offering Zoom-based supplementary coaching. Beyond the Staffed Scrimmages, teams also have the option to book a Case Brainstorm session, Presentation Consultation or Practice Q&A.

That this is free and available to any team — public or private, seasoned or rookie, near or far — is marvelous. Coaching on the public speaking aspects will help so many inexperienced and shy participants. And I think the Case Brainstorms will be especially helpful. So often we get caught up in the competitive aspects. A chance to simply share ideas and explore lines of reasoning may be the best way to promote the true spirit of Ethics Bowl yet.

Special thanks to the Parr Center and Team NHSEB for making this superb resource available. Click here to check it out, and please help spread the word!

Posted on

NHSEB Wins APA Prize

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!

Posted on

Trust the Science – NHSEB 2021-2022 Regionals Case 2 Guest Analysis

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 week we’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]

NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #2. Trust the Science

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips on This Case
  • 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.

Good luck in your collaborative thinking! 😉 

Mr. A’s Coaching Tips  Footnotes

Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Study
  1. (Article) “What Should Health Science Journalists Do in Epidemic Responses?. @ AMA journal of ethics.  By Katherina Thomas and Alpha Daffae Senkpeni. AMA journal of ethics 22.1 (2020): 55-60.
  1. (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]
  1. (Article)  “Science center’s principles offer guidance to reporters covering complicated COVID-19 issues.” @ Covering Health — Association of Health Care Journalists | Center For Excellence In Health Care Journalism. By Tara Haelle (August 16, 2021). 
  1. (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]
  1. (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] 
  1. (Article) “ Media ethics, safety and mental health: reporting in the time of Covid-19” @ Ethical Journalism Network. (3-18-2020) By Hannah Storm, EJN Director. 
  1. (Article) “Tips for professional reporting on COVID-19 vaccines.” @ WHO. (7 December 2020) World Health Organization.
  1. (Video) “Digital Spread of Pandemic Misinformation and Lies, Part 1” @ AMA Journal of Ethics  (Jul 22, 2020) “Dr Vish Viswanath talks about the spread of COVID-19 misinformation through digital platforms and social media.” [18:05]
  1. (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]
  1. (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]
  1. (Scholarly Article) “Journalists on COVID-19 Journalism: Communication Ecology of Pandemic Reporting.” @ American Behavioral Scientist (2-5-2021) By Perreault, Mildred F., and Gregory P. Perreault. ABS 65.7 (2021): 976-991.
  1. (Scholarly Article) “Ethical issues and public communication in the development of cell-based treatments for COVID-19: Lessons from the pandemic.” @  Stem cell reports. By Turner, Leigh, et al. Stem cell reports (2021).
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?” 

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?

Posted on

Dining Out During a Pandemic – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 6

This year 2020 faced a global crisis through the Pandemic COVID-19, formerly known as SARS-CoV-2. In early March of this year, many stores in the United States began closing down, and the economy began to shut down. Organizations deemed as non-essential were closed, and the people were instructed to remain in their homes unless they absolutely needed to go out. This case study analysis will address some ethical issues regarding dining out during the pandemic.

This guest post was graciously written by Mr. Luis Villanueva of East Texas.

Is it unethical to dine-in at restaurants in the midst of a pandemic such as COVID-19? The answer to this question is yes, it can be. However, it can also be unethical not to allow restaurants to remain in business.

It can be unethical to dine out during the pandemic because doing so unnecessarily increases the likelihood of the disease spreading out. Eating out requires taking off protective masks which the CDC (Centers For Disease Control and Prevention) deems necessary to protect the public. Taking off the mask at one’s table and calling it the “off mask” section is like being in a pool and calling a certain area the “pee section.” It’s going to spread! The urine will travel through the water just like the virus would travel through the air. Moreover, there is really no way to completely eliminate the chances of catching the virus while dining out. Because people eat out at public restaurants, they are putting themselves and others at risk of infection, and it is therefore not the best ethical decision.

It can also be unethical to close down a family restaurant. Refraining from supporting a dear one’s business would de-emphasize the needs and interests of loved ones. Say for instance there is a single-mother working hard to feed her seven young daughters, and she owns a restaurant that provides her only source of income. Shutting it down would place her in a very difficult dilemma. Does she close and let her daughters starve? Or does she keep her business open at the cost of increasing the risk of viral infection?

What about the immediate people who work for her, like cooks and waiters? Closing down the restaurant would also cost these people their jobs and their ability to take care of their families.  Statistically speaking, they have a much greater chance of surviving the COVID-19 virus than they do surviving starvation from lack of food or shelter. Keeping the restaurant open is not meant to be an easy ethical choice. And certainly this pandemic year has not necessarily been the most enjoyable, fun, or thrilling year for everyone (although some folks have been able to find so many things to be grateful for even in a year like 2020). From a Care Ethics perspective, it would be understandable, and ethical, if the single-mother kept her restaurant open to prioritize the basic needs of her seven little girls. 

What responsibility do Andy and Megan have to protect the health of others, especially if those others choose to put themselves at risk? As the article explains, Megan and Andy used to go out to eat quite a lot before the pandemic. This of course strengthened the profits of the businesses where they dined. Some could say though that they both have a responsibility to stay at home to decrease the chance of spreading the disease. Even if others choose to put themselves at risk by going to public restaurants, Megan and Andy could avoid dining out in order to protect people from greater risk of infection. Not going out to restaurants could be Megan and Andy’s contribution to reduce the chances of spreading COVID-19.

How should decisions balancing the support of the economy and the protection of people’s health be made during a pandemic?  This question is really where everything is headed to. What is the balance? Perhaps one could use the production-possibilities frontier to explain what the best course of action would be. This process is very similar to a consequentialist perspective that strives to maximize profit or “net pleasure.” So, according to the production-possibilities frontier, there exists the right amount to balance out supporting the economy and protecting people’s health.

Say for example, that the country closes down all stores altogether, including gas stations, supermarkets, and of course all restaurants. This would be inefficient because people would likely perish from hunger and thirst even so more than they would from the coronavirus. On the other hand, if all restaurants remained open as they normally are, and, just to make things interesting, if all senior citizens who are vulnerable to the virus were given free groceries or meals as an incentive to get out of the house more, then virus cases would skyrocket considerably and possibly turn out fatal for the people of tertiary age. So what the PPF (production-possibilities frontier) would suggest is to do what maximizes net safety. That is, keep enough supermarkets and shops so that people don’t starve out of their basic needs, while at the same time close many others down so as to negate the effect of rising coronavirus cases.

Posted on

Factory Farming – NHSEB 2020-2021 National Case 1

Case 1 this NHSEB season comes out pretty hard against factory farming. This is uncharacteristic of ethics bowl cases, which usually offer a decent balance of reasons for and against. The lopsided presentation may be appropriate due to just how difficult factory farming is to morally defend. However, one angle to consider is how beef production and consumption doesn’t seem quite as morally problematic as other forms of meat.

Napoleon reconsidering his career choice…

Industrial vs. Mom and Pop

First, it’s important to distinguish factory farming from family and hobby farming. Our romanticized image of agrarian animal husbandry still exists. I bottle fed calves as a teenager in the 90s. My wife’s family once raised a pig. Thousands of preparedness-minded suburbanites built luxury chicken coups at the outset of COVID. These examples aren’t what case 1 is targeting.

Factory farmed pigs are kept in industrial buildings on concrete floors, separated from their mother shortly after birth, and given little opportunity for interaction or mental stimulation. Despite what the entitled dogs in Babe may say, pigs are famously smart, as smart as or smarter than canines. Imagine thousands of bright Australian Shepherds, eager to herd and frolic and fetch, instead confined to concrete cells. Now imagine equally intelligent pigs in the same predicament, no warm mud to wallow in, no landscape to explore.

As Napoleon Dynamite discovered, factory farmed chickens are crammed into cages so small they can’t even spread their wings. Imagine having a powerful instinctual drive to do something as simple as flapping, yet being smothered between a wire cage that cuts into your feet and fellow prisoners pecking at your face. For your entire life. Whether bred for poultry or eggs, factory farmed chickens lead pretty miserable lives.

This just scratches the surface. If you’re up for the full gory truth, PETA and similar organizations routinely send spies undercover to record how factory farms are run. So do some research – ensure your position on factory farms is based on a fair and accurate assessment of actual, current conditions. But just as we shouldn’t accept the myth that all farms are happy farms, we shouldn’t conclude all meat sources are equally tortured.

Bacon vs. Beef

While some factory farmed animals have it really bad, it would be a sweeping generalization to conclude all meat sources are severely mistreated.

Beef cattle, for example, often live a decent life up until the point of slaughter. They’re usually free to roam and graze, breed and birth, and are left largely to behave as they might in the wild. This isn’t because beef farmers are necessarily concerned with cows’ happiness. Giving them room to roam is simply efficient and convenient. Cattle need grass (and hay during the winter), a water source (any pond or creek will do), and a good enough fence. Fenced fields are cheap. Pond water falls freely from the sky. So long as you don’t have too many cows per acre, or you rotate the herd at regular intervals, grass grows on its own. I know because I live in cattle country and thanks to kind neighbors enjoy ATV rides along and through cow pastures regularly (watch for those patties!). Beef cattle aren’t pampered. But their lives usually aren’t as bad as factory farmed pigs and chickens.

Of course, veal’s another story. Veal comes from calves who have weights tied around their necks to prevent them from moving. This ensures their meat is tender and white, which is what makes veal veal.

Cows are also sometimes artificially inseminated rather than naturally bred. Having a farmer impregnate you with a long straw feels invasive, cow or not. Young bulls often have their testicles removed via a thick rubber band that cuts off the blood supply and causes the scrotum to rot and fall off (this turns bulls into steers, preferred because steers are less aggressive and easier to handle). The de-horning process is painful and traumatic. Horns are either prevented from growing with an acidic cream, or cut off with shears (horns look cool, but being gored isn’t).

So it’s not all green grass and loafing. But hey, cattle are largely left alone, receive water, food and medical attention, I’m assuming even at the largest operations. Simply being able to roam outdoors is worth a great deal, and so beef cattle in particular would seem to have a less miserable life than non-free range poultry chickens and laying hens, as well as factory farmed pigs.

We should also note that dairy (milk-producing) cows have it worse off than beef cattle. I know because I’ve visited local dairies – watched a high school buddy dip a cow’s udders in an iodine solution before attaching the suction mechanism that drained its milk. One hardship is that dairy cows are kept perpetually pregnant – that’s why they’re able to continually produce milk. Male offspring aren’t especially useful on a dairy farm, and are sold to be raised for beef. That’s how I obtained my own calves as a kid, by buying 3-day-old Holsteins from a local dairy which I’d then raise to 6 months or so and sell to farmers at auction.

I concede this so you know the extent and limits of my experience with farm animals. Full factory farms I know only through YouTube. But medium-sized beef cattle and dairy farms and hobby egg operations, I’ve seen up close. I actually raised chickens as a kid – my favorite’s name was Cluck. My first calf’s name was Buttercup. If your only encounters with farm animals have been at the zoo, do some research so your view isn’t based on an overly rosy or an overly ugly myth. The truth is somewhere in between.

Size Matters

Ethicist and philosophy grad school buddy Joel MacClellan once made a convincing argument that it’s less morally problematic to eat meat from large as opposed to small animals. Why? One cow can supplement a small family’s diet for an entire year. However, one chicken won’t last a week. In fact, if KFC’s family-sized buckets are any indication, sometimes it takes more than one chicken to feed a single family a single meal.

Assuming cows’ and chicken’ ‘lives and suffering matter equally, if killing and eating one rather than the other would decrease suffering and death, all else equal, that’s the one people should eat. In fact, if whale meat were healthy and sustainable, according to this line of argument, we should all switch to whale. Or bear or hippopotamus or whatever.

MacClellan’s insistence that we eat meat in ways that minimizes overall pain and maximizes overall pleasure is consistent with the argument Australian philosopher Peter Singer offers in Animal Liberation. A Utilitarian, Singer contrasts the pleasure humans get from the taste of animal flesh with the great suffering animals must endure to provide it, concluding that our pleasure is far outweighed by their pain. His logic is hard to deny.

Given that factory farms are especially miserable, Singer’s argument is most powerful for animals stuck in them, living under the worst conditions. And combined with MacClellan’s argument, it would seem that eating smaller animals, which presumably endure greater suffering to produce similar nutrition and taste satisfaction, is more morally problematic than eating larger animals.

Thus, a reasonable person interested in developing a nuanced position on factory farming might conclude that it’s less wrong to eat non-veal beef as opposed to chicken, bacon and other meats. Why? Because non-veal beef cattle’s lives aren’t as terrible, and each can provide many times more satisfaction and nutrition to those who consume them.

Of course, an even more reasonable person might insist that carnivores eat wild deer or salmon, or synthetic meats grown in a lab (wait, wasn’t that an ethics bowl case from last season?). And an even more reasonable person might insist we satisfy our taste buds with yummy fruits and vegetables, and get our nutrition from pain-free plant-based proteins. But if your team isn’t ready for all that, try pitching this approach. And whatever the case, base your views on a realistic assessment of what factory farming is all about.

P.S. Australian Ethics Olympiad coach Andre Costantino wrote this excellent post on the ethics of meat consumption only two months ago. It’s on a different ethics bowl case, and not specific to factory farming. But it does address common misconceptions and bad rationalizations likely to come up during prep and/or competition.

P.P.S. Notice how the analysis above steers the conversation away from traditional factory farming, and also how it doesn’t directly address the enumerated list of harms found in the case’s final paragraph. To thoroughly prepare your team, be sure they’re ready to answer the question asked (oh man, practice question 3 with this one is tough!) , and also have some thoughts on the issues raised in the case which include environmental harms, labor-related issues, the fact that meat-eating is often unhealthy, and how large factory farms run smaller operations out of business.