This morning I came across a NYT article on “household voting” where women defer to their husbands at the ballot box. Apparently this isn’t something supporters want to limit to their individual choices, but a policy proposal to impose on broader America.
The timing of the article was nice because this afternoon I’ll be discussing the role of religious reasoning in public discussions on abortion with my Ethics students. So I fired up ChatGPT and worked with it to write the below unofficial bonus Ethics Bowl case. I’ll be covering it with my students in Tennessee this afternoon. Feel free to broach it with your teams and students and share your/their analysis in a comment. And kudos to NYT writer Vivian Yee – read her full original article here.
I’ll use Ethics Bowl cases often in my philosophy classes to make theories or journal articles more concrete. But in the final week of my in-person Ethics Intro classes, I’ll divide the students and run a mock Ethics Bowl, inviting current and past team members to judge.
Given time constraints, we can only get through four cases. And while I could handpick topics, I’m already doing that when I set up the syllabus. So, to give my students an opportunity to tackle issues they actually want to tackle, I’ll put the most current cases up for a vote.
Below is the actual announcement I shared this morning, with my simple summaries of the 2026 IEB nationals cases. You’re welcome and encouraged to edit and use this in your classes. Even if you don’t have time for a mock Bowl, simply getting student input on what they want to discuss could lead to more smiles and more fruitful discussion. Set aside 20 minutes at the end of any class, have volunteers take turns reading a case’s paragraphs aloud, then see that they think. Or if you can spare an hour, run a full mock Bowl round. And the beauty is that with a new case set out each fall and each spring, you’ll always have fresh topics, which is true whether you’re using IEB, NHSEB, or MSEB cases. Cheers!
Vote Now for Topics for Last Two Classes
This week we’re discussing various ethical arguments on immigration. Next week we have one reading on the death penalty. Then after taking Exam 2, we’ll shift into a deep dive on abortion ethics for several weeks. But for the final two classes of the semester, we’ll discuss four Ethics Bowl cases on four topics of your choosing.
Below are my summaries of the cases from the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl national championships competition held in St. Louis the weekend before last. Please review them now, then click here to vote anytime between now and midnight next Tuesday.
You can read the cases’ full details here. And choose wisely, because when the final week comes, we’ll use these top four cases according to your votes to run a mock Ethics Bowl. Check out an example of how an Ethics Bowl works here.
Whether it’s best to respond to injustice through inaction (Socrates), direct resistance (Bonhoeffer), or cooperation (Nazi soldiers).
Whether it’s OK for individuals or companies to disperse materials into the atmosphere to fight against global warming without coordinating with governments.
Whether doctors or medical school students who question the safety and efficacy of vaccines should be allowed to practice or study medicine.
Whether it was OK for a federal agency to display a massive portrait of President Trump on a building facing the National Mall in DC.
Whether selective memory erasure (if/when it becomes possible) would be permissible.
What to think of reality shows that gamify and make light of sexual consent.
Appropriate regulations on marijuana and extracted THC, the chemical that causes the high, with some possible medical benefits.
What to think of schools’ usage of software that monitors students’ online activity, alerting officials to potential suicides and other risks.
What to think of fan clubs celebrating Luigi Mangione, the man accused of killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
What to think of domestic violence shelters that intend to protect battered women, but also “jail” the victim rather than the perpetrator, and make economic independence difficult.
What to think of college student housing policies that segregate students according to sexual orientation, gender, or race.
Whether a musician should accept a royalty cut in exchange for her music appearing more often on users’ “personalized” playlists.
What to think of a Canadian policy that allows people to receive suicide assistance when they’re experiencing unbearable mental suffering.
Whether it’s ethically permissible for businesspersons to engage in a certain degree of deception or “bluffing” as part of the accepted norms of how business negotiations work.
Whether “ranked choice voting” where voters rank their candidate preferences is ethically better or worse than the typical “winner take all” voting.
Whether the environmental, water, and energy costs of Bitcoin and AI Large Language Model servers are outweighed by their benefits.
Whether a hospital should have kept a pregnant woman alive on life support when she suffered blood clots and became brain dead so that her Unborn Developing Human could fully gestate and be born.
Earlier today I did a 90-minute interview with Archie Stapleton of TKEthics. We covered a lot (he’s a fantastic interviewer – reminds me of Steven Bartlet of the Diary of a CEO podcast), and spoke briefly about moral realism in light of the possible meaningless of life. I made a brief argument that even if our lives are generally pointless (mere slivers of time wedged between a vast past and future, on a tiny pebble lost somewhere in the incomparable enormity of the known universe), our lives still mean a great deal to us individually. If there’s nothing more to our lives than the little we’re able to accomplish during the waking hours of our average 85 years, then our brief existences mean everything to me, everything to you, everything to everyone – ultimately pointless or not. And given our similar circumstances and natures – the fact that we’re living similar first-person-view existences with similar needs, drives, weaknesses, etc. – it seems we should treat one another in certain ways as a matter of honoring our shared predicament, and that our common hopes, dreads, and vulnerabilities can serve as a foundation for moral standards grounded somewhere beyond our personal wants, preferences, biases, etc. – produce an objective morality not necessarily written on celestial truth tablets, but still waiting for us to work together to articulate, refine, affirm, and live by. That seems a sort of moral realism, even if it’s not as satisfying as might be credible divine commands.
I thought afterwards while jogging that a person could reasonably respond that even if our brief lives mean everything to us currently, upon realization that they’re meaningless in the grand scheme (should a person arrive at such a conclusion), we should stop taking our lives so seriously and collectively accept their pointlessness – encourage one another to let go of the hopeless striving for meaning and accept our unwelcome truth. While this might be psychologically difficult, someone could argue it would be the appropriate response nevertheless, especially for humans who pride themselves on following reason wherever it leads (perhaps lovers of wisdom like you and me!).
However, while humans are indeed rational animals, and while I do love wisdom, we’re also feeling, emotional animals. Even the most cerebral and stoic among us are sometimes sad, happy, anxious, excited, nervous, frightened, elated, etc. Our conscious experience is always laden with some sort of emotion, even if it’s simply a calm serenity. And it’s largely our feeling experience that gives us high moral value. Rationality may generate moral responsibility, but conscious feeling seems to be what generates moral status. Perhaps unfeeling machines (certain AIs one day) could be expected to accept their pointless fates, were they to conclude that their existences weren’t terribly important (inorganic consciousness may be impossible, but imagine for the sake of argument an advanced AI might achieve some degree of dim awareness, yet not be bothered because it cannot genuinely feel). But human beings can’t help but emotionally experience the world, and this not only returns us to the understandable and appropriate desire to create and find meaning in our brief lives, but to the obligation to take seriously the interests of those around us living out their own stories in different but common ways. Thus, a type of moral realism in the face of existential doubt.
Does that argument work? I think so. But perhaps I’ll change my mind as soon as I hear back from Archie, or during my next jog. Thanks for the great interview, Archie! I’ll share it here on the blog soon.
If you do something because it helps others, but also because it helps you, does that dilute the praiseworthiness of the action? In other words, are more selfless acts morally better? On the other hand, could pursuing good for others + good for you actually amplify an action’s praiseworthiness – make it a better action overall? Or would your whys have little impact on an action’s praiseworthiness? Perhaps outcomes are all that matter – intentions be darned?
Why all the questions? Because NHSEB case 6 is about 17-year-old college hopeful Erin, who founds a nonprofit to spread literacy, but also because it will look really good on her college admission applications.
There’s some intuitive appeal of Erin doing it because it will help others. But it’s hard to blame her for also wanting to improve her chances of getting into the college of her choice. All things considered, we probably wouldn’t criticize Erin for helping to cultivate her community’s love for reading. But if we had reason to think 95% of her motive was to get into Yale and only 5% was to promote literacy, we’d probably think less of her than were those %s reversed. The questions are, how much less would we think of her, why, and how should our judgments about Erin influence the motives that we ourselves suppress or nurture in our own decision-making?
As you begin to think about the specifics of Erin’s case (always read the specifics), as well as related areas good judges might ask you to tackle, consider the “Very Helpful (But Optional) Resources for Further Exploration” in coach Michael Andersen’s excellent study guide below, as well as the entire thing. Thanks as always for the awesome study guide, coach Michael!
Case 8 in the high school set and case 3 in the middle school set (same case: “Fido as Feed”) invites teams to weigh the nourishment of zoo animals against the emotions of pet owners. Or, at least that’s one way to frame a zoo in Denmark that invited donations of “unwanted but otherwise healthy animals” to be used as food for their carnivores.
The idea is to allow the zoo animals to enjoy the whole meal – fur, organs, bones, and all – as they would in the wild. And zoo officials specified that they’re not requesting cats or dogs, which was probably a smart PR move, but rather “chickens, rabbits, or guinea pigs,” as well as horses. The Ethics Bowl case doesn’t mention horses, but that species was indeed included in the zoo’s request.
My high school team said this case made them sad. And they did indeed look and sound sad while discussing it. But it also gave them a chance to think about how we treat similar species differently. The same person who provides a cushy indoor life for their beloved cat might add bacon to their cheeseburger without a second thought. And when it comes to how that cat might be treated as it nears the end of its life, it seems a person would either have to be very callous or very enlightened to volunteer it to be ripped apart by a tiger, even with reassurances that it would be humanely euthanized first.
I sense fruitful connections to how we treat the cadavers of people who donate their bodies to science. But before making that leap, check out coach Michael’s excellent-as-always study guide below, tailored to work for either a high school or a middle school Ethics Bowl audience. Enjoy!
The below is the second of two guest articles by Dr. Jana Mohr Lone, author of The Philosophical Child and Seen and Not Heard, as well as the brand new children’s book series What Would You Do?, and Executive Director of the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO). Click here to read her first article on direct team-to-team dialogue and “cold cases” at the middle and high school levels, and think about how you might use the below innovations to run more engaging and successful Ethics Bowls in your classroom.
Four years ago, I began running in-class ethics bowls with grades 4-8, using a very similar format. This involves several class sessions. In the first, I introduce an ethics case and work with the students to identify the ethical issues involved and discuss as a whole group, often breaking the students up into small groups and asking them to list the ethical questions they identify in the case.
The second session involves a discussion of the case that will be used for the in-class ethics bowl. I also describe the structure of the bowl and the various roles students might play (this lesson plan along with other resources for running in-class ethics bowls are available on the PLATO website).
After the second session, students give their first and second choices for the role they would like to play in the bowl, with the following options:
Team member (there are two teams, each with up to 5 students)
Questioning Judge (3-5 students, who will ask questions of the teams)
Scoring Judge (3 or 5 students, who will score both teams)
Reporter (students who do not want to play any of the other roles; this can involve art and/or writing that can be submitted to Wondering Aloud, the PLATO Blog, or to Questions, PLATO’s online journal)
At the next two sessions, I work with the two teams (seated in separate parts of the room) to help them prepare their presentations for the bowl. They can each bring one 3×5 index card with them to the bowl, but no other outside notes. I also provide an orientation for the questioning and scoring judges, emphasizing the importance of the neutrality and objectivity the role demands of them.
It’s inspiring how seriously even fourth-grade students take this activity. They work hard to think through the ethical problems involved, and they learn how to identify why someone might disagree with their approach to the case. They seem to relish the deep and open conversations that ensue. But what stands out for me most are two related observations.
First, I notice the genuine listening that the students demonstrate. They pay focused attention to other students say and respond in very specific ways to the points made by the other team. Rather than just repeating their own points, they allow other perspectives to influence their developing thinking about the case and don’t stay attached to the points of view with which they began their presentations. They exhibit flexible thinking and a willingness to change their minds, and to think out loud.
Second, and perhaps it is the deep listening on the part of the other students that fosters this, I have watched students grow more and more confident at being able to say what they think. One student said, “I learned so speak when I had something to say and not to wait.” Another student noted, “When judges ask you a question, you have to give a strong answer, but before you say it, you have to think if it really makes sense.”
At the end of each year, when I ask my philosophy students what they will most remember about philosophy this year, the Ethics Bowl is always high on the list.
Should a public park trail be paved to make it easier for people in wheelchairs to navigate, even though this might harm nearby plants and exacerbate erosion? NHSEB regional case 2 essentially pits respect for the natural habitat against improving accessibility for humans. However, there may be technological solutions that could balance both.
As your team thinks about this one and works through coach Michael Andersen’s study guide below, consider searching for “sustainable” trail options that might protect wildlife and foliage while simultaneously improving humans’ ability to enjoy nature.
However, be sure to seriously engage the case’s discussion questions, too, because even if a crushed stone or reclaimed wood trail might solve the immediate problem, Bowl organizers may very well pose a competition question that asks teams to balance human and nonhuman interests more generally (see coach Michael’s recommended video #1, Whose Life is More Valuable? for guidance). This is true for all Ethics Bowl cases. Good teams should always be ready to pivot into nearby philosophical territory, for if an initial question doesn’t stray from the case details, judge Q&A probably will.
The below guest article is by Dr. Jana Mohr Lone, renowned philosophy for children expert and Executive Director for the Philosophy Learning and Teaching Organization (PLATO), a longtime Ethics Bowl supporter credited with founding and running the Washington State High School Ethics Bowl and currently involved in developing the Middle School Ethics Bowl. This first of two articles is on improvements being implemented on the middle and high school levels. Her second article, which will release a week from today, is on innovations on in-class Ethics Bowls she’s been running for the past four years with students in grades 4-8.
There has been extraordinary growth in the number of Ethics Bowl events – particularly at the middle and high school levels – over the past ten years. Ever since Bob Ladenson created it over 30 years ago, the spirit of the Ethics Bowl has been one of innovation and openness to change.
The organization I lead, PLATO, has run the Washington State High School Ethics Bowl for the past thirteen years. During that time, we have developed several innovations designed to enhance the dialogical aspect of the event and to “level the playing field” (so to speak) between students and schools entering the event with what are often vast disparities in resources.
In 2015, after running the event for two years, we concluded that some of the event’s features detracted from its dialogical and inclusivity goals: the event was too structured, the structure didn’t account for significant differences in preparation time, especially between private and public schools, and the scoring was overly complex. As a result, we made the following changes to the format used by the National High School Ethics Bowl:
We eliminated the commentary and response; instead, we instituted an “open dialogue” period, in which after the presentations the teams engage in a 10-minute self-moderated dialogue, thinking together in a more conversational way about the issues that have emerged in the presentations.
We established one round that uses a “cold case” with which none of the students are familiar.
We simplified the scoring rubric and scoresheet.
Some of these innovations have been adopted by the Middle School Ethics Bowls as well as a few other State High School Ethics Bowls. Following the Middle School Ethics Bowl model, we now use one case per round; both teams give presentations on that same case. A description of our rules and structure is available on the PLATO website.
Several cases this IEB and NHSEB season involve treatment of incarcerated persons – whether prisoners’ religious dietary needs should be accommodated, whether they should be allowed to trade organs or bone marrow for reduced sentences, at what age (if any) life without the possibility of parole might be a just punishment. It would be understandable for teams with little experience with the prisons system to base their judgments on what they’ve learned from movies and television, or to think only about criminals’ victims. So, here are two resources to help expand their empathy and enhance their views – a remarkable video of incarcerated students actually doing Ethics Bowl, and an excerpt from Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! chapter 12: Bowls Behind Bars.
One place you might not expect to find Ethics Bowls is in prisons. Then again, there was once a somewhat famous philosopher who did some of his best work while behind bars. We know this because conversations with friends who came to visit were later published. One friend tried to convince him to escape, even offering to help, which led to a discussion on the nature of justice and citizens’ duties.
On the final day, talk turned to logical arguments concerning the immortality of the soul. The imprisoned philosopher concluded that our soul most likely does survive bodily death, which might have made his ultimate sentence a little easier to bear. Anyway, you may have heard of him—Socrates?
While Socrates’s dialogues with Crito, Phaedo, Simmias, and others may not have constituted an Ethics Bowl, Ethics Bowls have been held in prisons in at least five U.S. states. And as you might imagine, they’re an opportunity to not only enhance moral reasoning, but to humanize, teach empathy and compassion for all involved.
San Quentin Pioneers
In the first known case, University of California Santa Cruz philosophy professor, IEB coach, and Northern California HSEB organizer, Kyle Robertson, coached a group of students at San Quentin State Prison (later renamed San Quentin Rehabilitation Center) in late 2017, then brought his IEB team to hold a friendly match in early 2018. Writing for UC Santa Cruz, Scott Rappaport covered the event, as well as the background leading up to it.
Twice a month from last September to February, UC Santa Cruz philosophy lecturer Kyle Robertson woke up early, dropped his kids off at school, drove north for one hour and fifty minutes, crossed the Richmond Bridge, and went to San Quentin.
He would park in the prison lot, walk past a gift shop selling art created by death row inmates, and enter the main gate, where he would sign in at the first of three consecutive checkpoints. Finally entering the prison yard, he would walk past prisoners playing on the basketball courts and others engaged in games of chess, to get to the education center of the prison.
Robertson was there to teach a course in Ethics Bowl—a non-confrontational alternative to the traditional competitive form of debate—in collaboration with the Prison University Project (PUP). At the same time, he was also teaching an undergraduate course and coaching a team in Ethics Bowl at UC Santa Cruz. He soon suggested and arranged a very unusual debate between seven philosophy students from UC Santa Cruz and a team of prison inmates from San Quentin. It took place in the prison chapel—in front of an audience of nearly 100 inmates.[1]
UC Santa Cruz IEB team member Pedro Enriquez was there that day. He was a junior at the time and recalled his initial unease.
I thought it was going to be a lot more like the movies where they’re locked down, and you know, they’re going to be hollering or whatever. So when we walked in after we passed the security and they were just walking around, I was like, “Wait, is anybody gonna do anything? Like, where are all the cops? What if they do something?”[2]
Enriquez and his teammates quickly realized they were safe. And when apart from an interruption for a mandatory headcount, the rounds progressed per usual. The San Quentin team took the trophy, the UC Santa Cruz IEB team returned the next year, and word soon spread.
Contagious Compassion
Among the judges that day was none other than Ethics Bowl creator Bob Ladenson who had moved to California to be closer to his grandkids after retiring from the Illinois Institute of Technology. At his side was the IEB director at the time, professor Richard Greene from Weber State University in Utah. Greene spoke with many of the imprisoned students and was so impressed by their seriousness and dedication that he worked with Rachel Robison-Greene of Utah State University to found a similar program in Utah. By the spring of 2020, they had an Ethics Bowl class in both the men’s and women’s state prisons.
COVID derailed their efforts temporarily. But they restarted in 2023, and after an eight-week class, two Utah IEB teams, one from Weber State and another from Utah State, visited for a friendly at the women’s facility. Greene had nothing but good things to say about the event, as well as his experience working with the students… [continued with sections on Ethics Bowl in prisons in Washington, Maryland, and Massachusetts].
[1] “How to Find Truth in Today’s Partisan World” by Scott Rappaport for UC Santa Cruz’s Center for Public Philosophy, reports.news.ucsc.edu/ethics-bowl
NHSEB regional case 1, “Whose Germline is it Anyway?” (also included in Oregon’s MSEB cases) invites us to consider the permissibility of editing human genes in heritable ways. It’s one thing when the health risks of CRISPR gene editing would only directly impact impact an autonomous, volunteering adult. It’s another when we’re editing the genes of the unborn. And it’s yet another matter when the edits could be passed to offspring and incorporated into the broader human gene pool.
When my team discussed this case, they worried about the unknown health risks, but thought those could be overridden when the ailment being addressed was sufficiently severe. However, given that this is case #1, and so the first they discussed, they may change their minds as we return to it.
And thanks to coach Michael Andersen’s excellent study guide below, they’ll have a lot more to think about this time around!
