International Hub for all things Ethics Bowl
Happy New Year! While Rhode Island, Tyler, Texas (where I teach ethics online) and Virginia held their regional bowls in November or December, everyone else – from Washington D.C. to Washington state, California to the Carolinas – is still prepping for theirs.
So, for teams, coaches and dedicated judges, here are two additional study guides from all-star coach Michael Andersen. Enjoy!
There’s no shortage of morally questionable content on Netflix, and this season the esteemed NHSEB Case Committee decided to invite analysis of Dahmer, the streaming service’s second most-viewed show ever.
How to think it through? With Coach Michael Andersen’s study guide, of course, which happens to link to the below mental juice kickstarting TED talk on the ethics of true crime storytelling and consumption. Enjoy!
Another stellar case analysis study guide from Coach Michael Andersen in Washington.
Matt’s super quick, unsolicited take on the open-closed question distinction offered in the case: no question is “closed” for the true philosopher. We might quickly dismiss certain claims and arguments with good reason. But any idea sincerely expressed deserves consideration. Though my open-mindedness is tested when a friend sends me flat earth videos…
Anyway, the guide is fantastic per usual – thank you, Michael! The link to SchoolofThought.org‘s “Rules of Civil Conversation” alone make it worth every team’s review. In fact, let’s highlight those rather nice rules below… Why isn’t Ethics Bowl partnering with these hilariously (“let’s avoid the apocalypse”? – ha!) good folks? I’m an instant fan.
Could shielding a loved one from a terrible truth be admirable? I would thinks so. But much would depend on the stakes, the relationship, and reasonable assumptions about what our beloved would or wouldn’t want to know.
Could abusing entities that don’t really matter be indirectly wrong out of concern for entities that do matter? Kant thought so. While torturing a cat (which lacks the power of autonomy, and therefore substantial moral value) might not be directly wrong on Kantian grounds, it would probably make a person more callous generally, and therefore more likely to harm human beings.
Such are the core issues in cases 3 and 5. But don’t take my or Kant’s word for it. Think them through for yourself! And do it like a pro using Coach Michael Andersen’s expert study guides.
Courtesy of co-authors and Ethics Bowl Coaches Michael Andersen and Hassan Eltelbany, a superb guide to lead your team through regional case 14 followed by an equally superb analysis.
Be sure to check out the brief news story sharing the Nash family’s motives and how they’re doing now. And before reading the analysis, consider thinking through the guide with your team.
Super special thanks to Michael and Hassan for leading by example!
Our friend Michael Andersen in Washington is at it again, meticulously crafting and gifting invaluable resources to the global Ethics Bowl community. I’ve never thought of you as an elf before, Michael. But your care and generosity, and your location several degrees north of Tennessee, are bringing that comparison to mind!
Andersen’s Step-by-Step Guide, adapted from Dustin Webster’s Coaching Manual, leads ethletes from first impressions and relevant facts, into key stakeholders’ perspectives, the values and interests they’re likely to emphasize. While the guide asks teams to name the central moral tension, it’s careful to marinate in analysis mode. Visualizing parties adjacent on the page, it invites teams to adopt a character and talk things through.
It’s the perfect lead-in to Andersen’s Presentation Planner – a strategic blueprint of exactly what a team intends to argue and who’s responsible for what. Settling who’s answering the moderator’s question, who’s justifying the team’s position and who’s handling the recap on paper is sure to reduce confusion, promote quality prep and make a team both feel and perform better come Bowl day.
We’ll soon post some of Michael’s regional NHSEB case study guides, and may have an analysis of case 14, “A Phenotypic Prometheus?” Michael may or may not be co-authoring with Portland State Philosophy grad student, assistant coach and rising rock star educator Hassan Eltelbany… But first, we’re proud to share this thorough, concise and clear analysis how-to, as well as two examples of the humbly titled “Minimum Presentation Plan.” Thank you from all of us, Michael! Please say hello to Santa!
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.
⦾ 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?
NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #11. Just the Facts
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!
Related Ethics Bowl Cases:
2. 2016-17 National HSEB Case #14. Responsibility for implicit bias: “Should we blame people for having or acting on implicit biases, and if so how much? How should the fact that implicit biases are so widespread influence what we think about them?”
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.
⦾ 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?
NHSEB Regional Ethics Bowl #3. Boy, Bye: Or, On the Ethics of Ghosting
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.
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?