A new Ethics competition, hosted by the Modus Ponens Institute, will be held in March 2024. The Western competition will be on the 10th of March, and the Eastern competition will be on March 30th. The Pan American Final will be held on April 14th.
This event is unique for a few reasons: first, it has an exciting International competition students can attend if they place in the top positions at the National tournament. Also, all judges have extensive background in either Philosophy or a related field of study, or a history of Ethics Olympiad judging. They will provide extensive feedback each round, which will be invaluable for your improvement throughout the rounds!
Furthermore, the competition emphasizes the use of ethical theories to ground arguments. Understanding the key theories, utilitarianism, some sort of deontology (the founding father being Emmanuel Kant), care ethics, virtue ethics, and perhaps Rawlsian justice could all be utilized to build your positions.
You can find additional info at the Modus Ponens Institute webpage, or you can get in touch with the organizers at panamethics@modusponensinstitute.com. They will release the cases to you, and offer training if you desire it, once you’ve registered for the competition.
Finally, if you have any financial difficulty paying for the team fee ($180 Canadian dollars), or for pre-tournament coaching, you can simply ask via email for a scholarship, and access will be granted.
Happy fall! With the 2023-2024 season fully underway, here are three important updates.
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).
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.
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.
Our friends at Ethics Olympiad recently shared footage from an International Intercollegiate round between the University of Chicago and Monash University.
Many readers will be familiar with the cases: “Billionaires in Space” and “A New Genesis.” But for folks in the States, the mythical drop bear is a koala variant said to silently prey on unsuspecting tourists, feasting on the flesh of any unaware enough to allow them to drop onto them from Australian treetops.
Kudos to judge Kelly Hamilton for the disarming ice-breaker, “If you could replace the leader of your country with an animal, what animal would you choose and why?” The Americans predictably chose the bald eagle. But the Aussies, in a slightly cheeky mood, went with the down under equivalent of the American snipe.
Anyway, that’s only the beginning. Coaches and teams would do well to fast-forward to their responses. Great job to Kelly and Michael Funke for helping the teams productively navigate the issues. And thanks to Matthew for making this available.
Congratulations to Australian National University in taking both the gold and bronze medals in the first international collegiate Ethics Bowl/Olympiad! I had the honor of volunteer judging the evening of the 18th (the morning of the 19th in Australia) and the competition was impressive on several levels, with ultra-prepared teams from the U.S. and Down Under, and a collegial, collaborative spirit running all the way from Ethics Olympiad Director Matthew Wills and Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl Director John Garcia, through judges, coaches and teams.
According to organizer Matthew Wills, the winners were:
Gold – Australian National University Team 2
Silver – Tufts University
Bronze – Australian National University Team 1
Whitworth University was close behind in fourth, with honorable mentions awarded to Tufts University, University of Chicago and Monash University.
Kudos to Matthew and John for making this first collegiate-level international Bowl/Olympiad a reality, to the judges for volunteering their valuable time, and to the coaches and teams for spreading the goodwill of our unique approach to difficult moral and political issues across oceans and around the world. It’s needed in every country, and through partnerships like these the ethically-minded can combine forces, mutually empowering and elevating discourse one conversation at a time.
According to a recent press release, leaders in the US and Australia have agreed to hold the very first International Collegiate Ethics Bowl (aka Tertiary Ethics Olympiad) this coming April!
“In October 2022, ten university teams participated in the first-ever Tertiary Ethics Olympiad. Teams from universities in Queensland, NSW, Victoria, ACT and Western Australia participated in these heats. And in the end, teams from ANU and Monash University were awarded medals. This event is based on the popular Inter-Collegiate Ethics Bowl held annually in the US for nearly three decades. Given the long history of running these events in the US and the recent history of running Ethics Olympiads in Australasia, it made sense for the first International Tertiary Ethics Olympiad to happen on Wednesday, 19th April. Four top teams from Australasia will face the top US teams from the recent Intercollegiate US Ethics Bowl.”
To clarify, while it’ll be held the morning of Wednesday, April 19th down under, it’ll still be the evening of Tuesday, April 18th in the U.S. However, not too late – 6 til 10:30 Eastern, 3 to 7:30 Pacific. Awesome that a mutually amenable schedule was set.
Thanks to the folks on all sides for making this happen, chiefly Matthew Wills and John Garcia. Someone needed to do it. No one was. Way to be the change rather than merely talking or dreaming about it. Cheers!
Earlier this week the first ever Tertiary Ethics Olympiad was hosted by Matthew Wills and team in Australia. I was honored to serve as a judge, and was supremely impressed with the quality of analyses and discussion. The results, shared by Matthew via email afterwards:
“[Australian National University, ANU] (Green) was awarded the Gold medal, ANU (White) the Silver medal and Monash University (Red) received the Bronze medal. Close behind and in order were; [University of Western Australia, UWA] (Aqua), UWA (Green), Monash University (Yellow), University of Wollongong (Blue), UQ (Orange), Curtin University (Black) and UQ (Plum). The following teams received honorable mentions from the judges; Curtin University (Black), ANU (White), Monash University (Red & Yellow), UWA (Aqua & Green), University of Wollongong (Blue) & UQ (Orange and Plum).”
Super congrats to Australian National University for winning both 1st and 2nd place! But thanks and congrats to all coaches and teams for making this first event possible. I know Matthew was thrilled to expand Ethics Olympiad to the collegiate level, and the broader Ethics Bowl community couldn’t be more proud.
Philosothon has much in common with Ethics Bowl. Both require civility and critical thinking. Both balance healthy competition with enlightened cooperation. And both feature exceptionally good-looking judges.
Alan Tapper and Matthew Wills recently wrote an article on just how good-looking these philosopher-judges are, especially when that Deaton fellow is involved. Kidding! It’s on the question of whether the cooperative nature of Philosothon can survive in light of its competitive elements, a topic relevant to Ethics Bowl for sure.
One argument Tapper and Wills consider is that since demonstrating cooperation is required to win, a team’s competitive spirit can (oddly) incentivize cooperation. Aggressive, obstinate teams who attack their opponents and interpret their arguments in the worst possible light may do well at a traditional debate. But not at a Philosothon, and not at an Ethics Bowl. Therefore, the competitive will to win can actually inspire cooperation, at least when judges are directed to assign points accordingly.
However, this raises the question as to whether an impure motive dilutes the laudability of an action. Surely a team with civility embedded in its culture, demonstrating respectful dialogue because it’s internalized in team members’ character, is more deserving to win than a group of fakers. All else equal, I, like you, want sincerely civil teams to win and superficially civil teams to lose. But this is almost impossible to guarantee. Could skilled debaters study our norms, rehearse, put on a show for the judges and win, only to revert to their true disrespectful selves in the hallway? Of course. However, if the result is heightened civility, we probably shouldn’t complain. A sincerely civil team is likely to be wise, patient and understanding, and able to take such a loss with grace. For the sneaky team, the more they practice pretend civility, the more likely it will eventually become sincere. And what better way to encourage teams of all sorts to participate and enjoy the mutual-benefits of both Philosothons and Ethics Bowls than to lure them in with exceptionally good-looking judges.
Ethics Bowl began in the U.S. on the college level, first in Bob Ladenson’s classroom, then at APPE sessions under the Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl. Several years later, folks like Fred Guy in Baltimore, Roberta Israeloff on Long Island and George Sherman in St. Petersburg found success extending them into high schools. And slowly, innovators like Deric Barber in Houston tried Ethics Bowl in middle schools as well.
In Australia, the high school version came first, followed by middle and elementary school. And this fall, our friends down under are holding their first collegiate-level Ethics Olympiad.
Gold, silver and bronze awards will be determined by three Zoom-based heats on October 4th. Each team needs a coach, up to two teams are allowed per institution, members may be undergraduate or grad students and must be enrolled in “a tertiary institution in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore or Hong Kong.”
Kudos, Matthew and team! I understand that several schools in India participated in a recent high school Ethics Olympiad. Awesome that you’re not only expanding geographically, but across age groups as well.
For more information click here or email admin [at] ethicsolympiad [dot] org.
Organizing an ethics competition is no easy feat. There are coaches, judges and moderators to recruit, venues to book, schedules to set, questions to finalize. People need training. Trophies need ordering. Everyone needs reminding. Doing it all online is easier in some ways, but tougher in others.
This is exactly what Matthew Wills has been pulling off on a consistent basis with Australia’s Ethics Olympiad, only he’s shouldering the additional burden of working with people in different countries, on different continents, across different time zones – sometimes radically different time zones.
Two Thursdays ago, I experienced an Olympiad firsthand as a judge. From the comfort of my home office in Tennessee, I had the pleasure of discussing dating after prison, defunding the police, and Netflix’s Tiger King with teams in Australia, Canada and Hong Kong. The participant diversity was striking, even among the Australian teams – one, an all-girls Catholic school; another, an agricultural school. All were well-prepared, the discussions highbrow, the scoresheets close – comparable to many of the best teams in the States.
While other events struggled to transition from on-site to online bowling, Ethics Olympiad has thrived. One secret to its success is that Matthew brilliantly reduced the number of judges/moderators needed for each heat from four people to one. How? By empowering a single person to simultaneously moderate and handle all judging.
I’ve been an organizer, a coach, a judge and a moderator. But I’ve never been more than one at a time, so this was intimidating. Even more concerning was the fact that the event would begin at 9 pm Tennessee time, and end just before 1 a.m. However, two accommodations that made late-night judging/moderating completely doable:
An app that handled the coin flip, the timing, displayed the cases and questions – all I had to do was share my screen and click. I’m of course familiar with Ethics Bowl/Olympiad procedures. But man, the app made everything super simple – with fifteen minutes’ practice, a complete rookie could have been fine.
Matthew worked with ethics professors beforehand to provide judges extra questions to explore during the Q&A portion of each match. I always prefer to engage the teams on the specifics of what they’ve argued, and didn’t need any help thinking of something to ask in rounds 1 and 2. But a backup question or two came in handy later in the evening as my other-side-of-the-globe-past-my-bedtime-brain began to fade.
These assists were welcome, but no real surprise. Matthew’s been coordinating online Ethics Bowls/Olympiads for teams in different time zones and on different continents for at least a decade – long before the pandemic forced the rest of us to go virtual. And that experience shows.
He even conceded at the opening of the event that his home internet had went down a mere hour before kickoff, and that he was joining – and running the entire show – using a cellphone hotspot. He shared afterwards how this had induced minor panic, which, as a former organizer, I can definitely appreciate. But from my seat, he was as cool as ever.
If you ever get the chance to join an Olympiad (in any capacity), definitely give it a try. Mathew even offers judge/moderators a modest stipend, something that likely improves their buy-in, preparedness and reliability. Most of us in the community would support even a poorly-run event. But it’s the little things that make an ethics competition especially enjoyable, and our friends down under are pioneering improvements I’m hoping others will give a try.
P.S. Parts of Australia recently went back on COVID lockdown, which meant several teams had to unexpectedly join individually from their homes. There was a chance that some would choose to deliberate openly – discussing how to answer the initial question, comment on and respond to commentary from the other team for all to hear, rather than in private. I thought this might be a cool experiment – to see if teams discussing their strategies and responses live, on-air, might make the atmosphere more… deliberative. (A NHSEB case committee member recently shared the worry that some Bowls are devolving into “glorified debate” – a concern I share.) Alas, in each of the rounds I moderated/judged, the teams found ways to deliberate privately, connecting via a separate live video chat during the conferral periods. But if any teams did discuss openly, or if any events have tested this separately, please shoot me an email – would love to know how it went. For the further we can distinguish ourselves from the posturing and strategizing of traditional debate, the more transformative Ethics Olympiad and Ethics Bowl can be. And the more successful we are in that regard, the stronger the benefits not only for participants, but democracy, which is why most of us are here. The atmosphere at the Olympiad was laudable for sure – Matthew does a good job setting expectations, leading by example, and recruiting the right folks.
This guest post was generously written by Australian Ethics Olympiad Coach, Andrew Costantino. Andrew teaches Philosophy and Religious Education at Santa Sabina College, and was struck by a case written by Professor Tom Wartenburg at Holyoke College in Massachusettsconcerning the ethics of consuming meat.
Fancy a BLT?
In the 2019 Australian Middle Years Ethics Olympiad students were asked to consider a scene from the 1995 movie Babe. In this scene an anthropomorphised piglet is seen having a chat with a family of sheep dogs. The dogs, with an air of entitlement that stemmed from their privileged relationship to the farmer and superior intelligence, reassured the piglet that she would not be eaten as ‘the farmer only eats stupid animals’. The dogs then go on to name the piglet, Babe.
This is a disturbing scene, it would seem that it is an accepted norm that the smart eat while the dumb inevitably get eaten. One must ask, is the moral justification of our diet dependent on intelligence? Are there any other moral considerations?
This reasoning, if consistently applied, could be a ‘recipe’ for disaster. It may mean that the nightly news could replace Master Chef and an evening on social media could become a virtual buffet. On a more serious note, if we cannot accept that intelligence is a morally relevant distinguisher when determining what we ought to eat, are we ethically bound to adopt vegetarianism?
The appeal to empathy
One way in which some argue for vegetarianism or veganism is through an appeal to empathy. You may be familiar with vegan activist and animal rights campaigner Joey Carbstrong. He attempts to use moral reasoning and emotive imagery to convince people that the only truly ethical choice is to live a vegan lifestyle and he makes many well formulated points. In a recent post he uploaded a clip where he visited what was termed the world’s ‘most transparent slaughterhouse’. Part way through the interview he stated that he liked to ‘put himself in the animal’s position…’ and he knew that if he were the animal, he would prefer life to death. He also appeals to the value of the individual animal ‘in there’. Movies that anthropomorphise animals, like Babe, do the same thing, they imagine that the animal is ‘just like us’. The Babe ‘in there’ is ‘just like’ the Andrew ‘in here’. We are hardwired to be aware of other minds and thus to infer subjective experience onto other creatures. The problem is that we infer that this subjective experience is akin to our own.
I find this particular approach at least partially problematic. The problem is that when we put ourselves in the position of the animal or we engage with a film about a fictional talking pig we subsequently presume that pigs talk, that they have an inner dialogue, and thus have a self-reflexive identity. These activities imply a certain level of higher order self-concept, they imply an ability to depict things symbolically, to conceive of oneself as a temporal creature. It implies that the animal can articulate its desires, have long term goals and create traditions. It implies some critical faculty of abstract reasoning. A considerable amount of the moral value that we attribute to people stems from these distinctly human capabilities. Even when people may not have these capabilities we seem to value them, at least partially, because we know that these abilities are emerging or in regular circumstances should be there. When we tragically lose these capabilities through injury, disability, age or accident we often see this as a significant loss, the person is diminished. We can say that those suffering these misfortunes are ‘no longer themselves’, they are ‘vegetables’ or ‘no one is home’. Some go as far as to say these kinds of significant losses equate to a life that is not worth living.
I would argue that our value and membership in the moral community is at least partly tied up in this unique form of self concept and self expression. Daniel Dennett once said that if a lion could talk it could not tell us anything about what it’s like to be a lion, not because we couldn’t understand it but because once it started to talk it would not know what it was to be a lion. The human experience and human conception of identity is unique. Anthropomorphising all sentient creatures to an equal extent and seeing ourselves in the eyes of the other can be problematic and it can lead us to overstate and over simplify our case.
This does not mean that the subjective experience and suffering of sentient creatures is morally irrelevant. However, if we are to avoid rash generalisations we cannot conflate disparate things into a single category for the sake of convenience. One philosopher who is acutely aware of this is Martha Nussbaum. When considering animals in her broader theory of justice she argues that animal capability and flourishing must be considered in a way that is proportionate to their dignity, it ‘…regards each animal having a dignity all its own’. The protection of animal capabilities must be commensurate with the kind of things that that animal can ‘do’ and the kind of thing that it can ‘be’. The ‘doings’ and ‘beings’ of particular animals are distinct. In this view, one can adopt a situational ethic that develops rules appropriate to the nature of the animal in question and the situation in which the rule is being made while ensuring that at least a minimum amount of dignity can be safeguarded. In short, Babe doesn’t need a name and voice in order to be worthy of some level of moral consideration, however the ability to feel pain doesn’t automatically grant Babe moral equivalence. Furthermore, it would be equally naive if one did not recognise cognitive ability and self concept as contributing features in a suite of morally relevant considerations.
The problems of ideology
In relation to the question of vegetarianism, ideology can reign supreme on both sides of the debate.
Those who indiscriminately defend the consumption of animal products often defer to tradition in one form or another. In a recent discussion with students I (playing the devil’s advocate) suggested that we should eat koalas. They were appalled – “but it’s a koala!” they exclaimed. Here are some facts: koalas have disproportionately small brains, low levels of adaptability, they sleep most of the day, they live mostly solitary lives and have minimal perceived benefits to the ecosystems that they are a part of. It seems that killing a koala for food could possibly be a morally neutral, if not justifiable, action… and yet it just feels wrong. At this point one student will interject and say ‘Aww… but they’re cute!’ I quickly respond, ‘Surely cuteness is not morally relevant and even if it were, we eat lambs, calves and piglets all of the time. Do you not find them cute?’
There is an awkward silence.
Problematic ideological reasoning can similarly infiltrate those who maintain an ideological commitment to vegetarianism. People become vegetarians for a multitude of reasons. The reasons include the intuitive wrongness of killing, the concerns for ecological sustainability and preventing the needless suffering of sentient creatures. Most vegetarians justify their positions with reference to one or more of these greater effects or principles.
Let’s consider a short case study: Peter is a strict vegetarian. Peter is at a restaurant, he orders the mushroom burger, what he doesn’t realise is that the mushroom is fried in a sauce that contains anchovies. Upon finding out this fact he calls the waiter, the waiter swiftly disposes of the burger. Peter orders the halloumi salad instead. Peter is satisfied.
In this case Peter has wasted food for no net gain. The suffering and killing that occurred has still occurred and no one has benefited. Furthermore, the second meal has added to the ecological impact of his dining experience, food has been wasted and more food has been produced. Finally, replacing halloumi for anchovies may also be more generally problematic. Anchovies are small fish with relatively low cognitive ability, high reproductive capacity, short life spans and they are often consumed in short timeframes in their natural settings. Dairy on the other hand, involves proportionately higher levels of cruelty. Dairy cows have a significantly higher cognitive capacity and are kept perpetually pregnant or lactating, they have their calves routinely stripped from them, their male calves supply the veal industry and their female calves share the fate of their mothers. When they are no longer useful they are slaughtered. In this case ideological commitment to vegetarianism leads to a response that is contrary to all the morally relevant reasons as to why one may be a vegetarian in the first place.
It would seem that deference to tradition either through affiliation to a particular ideological group or the enculturated values of one’s own society inhibit one’s capacity to make ethically defensible choices.
Back to the BLT
Sometimes we have a tendency to habitually exclude animals from the things that we see as morally relevant. Once we stop and consider that animals too have inner lives, we may be led to see reflections of ourselves in them. We may very well share some common experiences, however the homosapien is a very distinct species and the human experience is a unique one. Animals are not mindless machines and they are not fully functional, responsible human beings – their place in our moral community is nuanced and complex.
Personally, I think that it is unjustifiable for a person of sufficient means and education to indiscriminately dismiss the preferences and experience of sentient creatures. Equally, I do not think that all creatures, or their experiences, are equal. Ideological commitment to particular rules inevitably sets the bar at an unrealistic height and can ultimately lead to the perfect getting in the way of the good. Furthermore, such rules can actually be, in themselves, inhibiting when attempting to reach more ideal standards in general terms. Avoiding deontological rules in favour of nuanced and situational analysis is hard and is riddled with problems of incommensurate goods and unforeseen consequences. Considering each meal, each moment can be exhausting.
Despite this, we can aim to develop a disposition that is considered, conscious of the proportional dignity and capabilities of sentient creatures and compassionate toward the pain of others. Such an ambition may enable us to imperfectly walk the line between apathy and dogmatism in a way that perfectly captures the complexities of the human condition.
Would I order the BLT?
Probably not, because such an action is seldom justifiable in my given context. Despite this, if you had already ordered it for me – perhaps while I was on my soapbox – I would eat it..
Andrew Costantino, Santa Sabina College, Sydney, Australia
