Category: Coaching

If you have team members who are intimidated by the public speaking aspects of ethics bowl, here are some quick tips in the form of my Three Commandments of Public Speaking.

Commandment I: Know Thy Material 

Knowing what you’re talking about as a speaker not only improves your content, but your confidence and delivery. Just imagine being asked to give an impromptu lecture on rocket booster o-rings. Right now. Unless you’re a rocket scientist who’s recently lectured on this topic, this would suck.

However, imagine being asked to give a talk two months from now on a topic with which you’re already familiar. Were you to take the time to carefully study it, craft a clear and organized message, and conduct additional background research, you’d a) have much more useful, accurate and informative ideas to share, and b) feel a heck of a lot better about sharing them.

With ethics bowl, knowing what you’re talking about means carefully reading and analyzing the cases, identifying the morally relevant details, drafting and refining a well-supported position, as well as anticipating and being able to respond to objections. It means understanding the nuances of any ethical theories that might be applied, as well as anticipating other takes on the issue, and how you might go about evaluating them. In a nutshell, it means having a breadth of understanding that will facilitate deep analysis on the fly.

Developing this level of mastery for a dozen or more cases can be tough. One strategy is to work up a summary table to help your team organize their thoughts. Click here for an article on doing that via a “case summary matrix.”

Commandment II: Be Thyself

The implicit pressure to adopt the style, mannerisms and tone of the judges (or what your team imagines the judges’ style, mannerisms and tone will be) can be strong, especially if they’re new to applied ethics and ethics bowl.

However, this is both likely to come across as transparently insincere (students are not judges, so why pretend to behave like them?), and to make your team feel a bit slimy.

Encourage them to find and become comfortable speaking in their unique voice, whatever that voice might be. Their “stage self” will be different (a little more polished, a little more formal, but still them) from their “hanging out with friends self,” or their “attending a concert self,” or even their “prepping with the team self.” But if the personalities that shine through are genuine, they’ll be more comfortable and confident, the judges will likely respect them more, and as a coach, their performance will be more likely to make you smile. (Warm smiles of pride are one of the primary perks of being an ethics bowl coach.)

Commandment III: Practice

Last, in order to develop your stage self, and in order to really know what you’re talking about, you have to practice. Your team won’t know exactly what questions will be asked, either by the moderator, the other team, or the judges, and so can’t rehearse responses. But they do know the cases, and they will have general positions sorted out beforehand, and can practice delivering an overview that establishes their mastery of the key details, as well as their general take, which they can customize and elaborate upon per the flow of the bowl.

Rehearsing a 60-second pitch that covers that much will significantly boost their confidence, and will allow them to begin speaking on a strong note. Starting strong will make a nice initial impression, affirming to themselves and everyone in the room that they’ve taken the event seriously.

To give them practice answering questions, simply conduct a mock bowl. How soon to do this during bowl preparation depends on your team’s familiarity with applied ethics, the cases and the bowl process. But there are few better ways to prepare for any event than running through the motions. That’s why actors do dress rehearsals, sports teams scrimmage, boxers spar, and militaries conduct war games. The more mock bowling, the better prepared and comfortable your team will be.

Stage Fright

Last, if you have team members who after carefully studying the material, embracing their stage selves, and rehearsing are still anxious about speaking, click here for a free chapter from my public speaking book on conquering nervousness. My “Urban Honey Badger” assertiveness drill is a little unorthodox. But it works!

For a video overview of my Three Commandments of Public Speaking, check out the below. And if you think your team could use my public speaking book, don’t buy it — just shoot me an email — happy to mail a free copy to any ethics bowl team that would do me the honor of using it. Cheers, Matt

In academic philosophy, an “argument” is a series of claims, called premises, intended to logically support another claim, called the conclusion. Sometimes rather than providing an actual argument, people will simply articulate an unfounded opinion, sometimes emphasizing how strongly they hold it (as if that somehow strengthens its plausibility or gives us objective reason to accept it). 

For example:

“It is my strong belief that abortion is wrong except in cases to save the mother’s life. I have believed this since I was young, and it seems obviously true – something even a child could appreciate. How could a moral person support the killing of an innocent baby? They couldn’t, and anyone who does is clearly evil.”

Contrast that with a similar view backed by an actual argument (and absent the inflammatory language):

“Abortions for reasons other than to save the mother’s life are unethical because the Unborn Developing Human, while not yet fully possessing the capacities of personhood (ability to feel pleasure and pain, ability to engage in relationships, ability to engage in higher reason and use it to develop and execute a life plan) is alive (growing, responding to stimuli) and possesses a genetic code that will enable it to develop into a full person, as well as a fully functioning member of the moral community.”

While the above passages share the same conclusion – that abortions are wrong except when necessary to save the mother’s life – the first doesn’t provide any compelling, rational reasons to support that view. It asks rhetorical questions, explains how long the author has held this view, and calls people who disagree mean names. But it doesn’t offer reasons, logically arranged, to support a conclusion.

The second passage, on the other hand, makes the case that abortions other than to save the life of the mother are immoral because (“because” is a premise indicator) the Unborn Developing Human (or baby/fetus if you prefer) will become a full person, and a full member of the moral community if allowed to grow and develop. Therefore, while aborting a UDH wouldn’t terminate an actualized person, it would terminate a potential person, which this author implies is morally wrong.

They’d do well to further explore why this would be wrong, to concede that UDHs are not actual persons (yet), and to argue why killing a potential person would be so wrong as to override all reasons a pregnant woman might have interest in aborting, beginning with pregnancies that are the result of rape. But we consider this brief argument here simply to show what an actual argument looks like contrasted with an emotionally laden opinion.

To the extent that your team offers arguments rather than mere opinions, you’ll help advance our collective understanding of the issue, and do better in ethics bowl.

Depending on your bowl organizer’s tastes, your team may need to prepare to discuss up to fifteen cases. That’s a lot of material – a lot of philosophical twists and turns, too.

One way to make it more manageable for your team is to develop a case summary matrix.

Customizing is allowed, but the basic idea is for each case to have a concise snapshot of:

• Basic details (who, what, when, where, why)
• Moral considerations (the key ones, from different directions)
• The team’s view (in a nutshell, how they evaluated the case – answered the key study questions)

Getting that much on paper will make case coverage more manageable. But for an even more robust and complete matrix consider adding:

• A possible objection (how someone might critique your team’s view)
• A reply to that objection
• Bonus points (anything relevant not included already, which may or may not arise during the judges’ Q&A portion)

If you’re a more heavy-handed coach, you can develop this matrix for your team. Or if, like me, you prefer to encourage your team to develop their own views, you can simply draw a blank table of the matrix on the board, fill in one or two as examples, and ask particular students fill in the rest.

This is a good way to get a team on the same page when the bowl is looming. But could also be used early in the season, and then revised as your bowl prep sessions play out.

Here’s a partially completed example that you’re welcome to download and edit, which I used with my own ethics bowl team during the 2017-2018 season. Enjoy!

Some coaches take for granted that if their team understands Utilitarianism, Kantianism, Virtue Ethics, Feminist Care Ethics or some other ethical theory well enough to apply it, they should – the judges are sure to be impressed.

But there’s been backlash from bowl enthusiasts, judges among them, who worry sometimes ethics bowl becomes ethical theory bowl.

Teams get hung up on a favored theory and miss nuances a common-sense moral analysis would catch. Plus, no theory is immune from criticism, and many judges have their favorites. You train your team to apply consequentialism, then face a panel of deontologist judges! Not good.

This actually came up during a recent conversation with ethics bowl creator, Bob Ladenson.

 

Matt: Bob, you mentioned how witnessing so many ethics bowls has changed your views on moral philosophy.

Bob: Yes, I have much more openness and wiliness to consider views that are very different than my intellectual instincts tend to take me to.

An example is you know how in a match very often teams will approach an issue by examining it from the perspective of various ethical theories? At our summer ethics bowl workshop meetings this often receives strong criticism from philosophy professors who consider this a sort of shopping list, formulaic approach to ethics. And that’s the way I felt in the beginning – I thought it was kind of naïve what the students were doing.

But over the years I’ve come to appreciate what the students were doing, and often use that approach myself, and am much more open to looking at things from the perspective of a philosophy that might have fundamental issues.

Afterwards Bob shared a recent email exchange that helped clarify his view.

Bob: I regard major philosophical theories of ethics as immensely important conceptual resources for thinking about controversial, highly viewpoint dependent, hard to resolve ethical issues.  I don’t think though that they’re needed in each and every such case…

Truth to tell, however, I still don’t have a clearly worked out position with which I’m satisfied.  Temperamentally, like John Dewey, I’m partial to philosophical analyses that emphasize underlying commonalities in seemingly divergent viewpoints.

Thus… I stress that the attributes of open mindedness, readiness to engage in meaningful conversation about controversial ethical issues, and deliberative thoughtfulness, which all are indispensable for rigorous analytical thinking in applied ethics likewise qualify as virtues of ethical discourse.

 

Bob’s view seems to be that analyzing cases through the lens of ethical theory can be illuminating, but that this isn’t necessary. It’s far more important that your team approach the cases with the right attitude: “open mindedness, readiness to engage in meaningful conversation about controversial ethical issues, and deliberative thoughtfulness.”

I would tend to agree. But bottom line, will using ethical theory more likely help or harm your team come bowl day?

From my experience, using theory during bowl prep is almost always helpful, but whether your team should explicitly employ Utilitarianism or Feminist Care Ethics during the bowl itself depends on how they’re prepared to use them.

I’ve seen teams namedrop Kant without explaining how the Categorical Imperative works or clearly applying it to the case. This made them appear less competent than had they avoided Kantianism in the first place. I’ve also seen teams offer conflicting analyses of the same case from the perspective of multiple theories, with no suggestions on how to resolve the tension. Judges were visibly unimpressed.

Analyzing cases from the perspective of ethical theories during bowl prep can be a great way to clarify the morally relevant considerations, as well as what’s at stake and most important. This is because ethical theories are really just amplifications and logical defenses of moral considerations we already intuitively endorse.

• Kantianism: rational consistency and respect for persons
• Consequentialism/Utilitarianism: consequences/happiness
• Feminist Care Ethics: the importance of relational ties, and how we should usually prioritize the interests of loved ones
• Virtue Ethics: the relevance of how our actions reveal and shape our character

People naturally apply these same reasons to moral questions, and so will your team. The benefit of employing ethical theory during bowl prep is that this can help clarify, order and validate your team’s moral intuitions, which can sharpen and strengthen the arguments they present at the bowl.

If your team’s really good, they can even namedrop old Kant. Just make sure they’re ready to illustrate that universalizability test during the judges Q&A, should one of them request it.

But don’t take my word for it. What’s been your experience with ethical theory and ethics bowl? Overall helpful or harmful?