Category: Interviews

Posted on

Ethics Bowl Advice from William & Mary’s IEB-Winning Captain

This past March, an especially talented team from William & Mary in Virginia won IEB nationals in St. Louis. I happened to run into their faculty sponsor, Tim Sommers (who studied under one of my philosophical heroes, John Rawls) in the parking garage afterwards, and was amazed to learn that the team didn’t have an official “coach,” only a faculty sponsor. So I reached out to team captain, Bernardo Jimenez, to get the backstory and see if he might have any advice for other teams. Bernardo was gracious enough to share the following article and pictures. Congrats to the entire W&M philosophy and Ethics Bowl program, and thanks so much for the awesome guest article!

I got into Ethics Bowl eight years ago as a high school freshman through NHSEB, where my school’s wonderful teacher, Ms. Way, had run a successful program for years. I imagined myself as fond of anything that involved philosophy back then, and in this case, I happened to be right. I had to learn some tough lessons about discipline and hard work during that time—I didn’t compete for the team until my junior year. By my senior year, though, I was one of the team’s main competitors, and we had an amazing year, placing 5th at the national competition. At that point, I had fallen in love with Ethics Bowl forever.

I got into college Ethics Bowl on the back of dissatisfaction from coming close to but not winning the national competition—I felt like I had unfinished business and could learn even more lessons from this amazing activity. The whole idea of starting a team on my own at William & Mary still might not have gotten off the ground without some great luck; somehow, I made it to the national competition competing solo my freshman year. After that, my buddy Sam came on, and we were a team of two for a while. Later, we got a faculty coach in addition to myself (Professor Tim Sommers), recruited new members, and everything of course culminated in winning of the APPE IEB this spring. Out of everything I ever did in Ethics Bowl, I have to say that learning how to coach a big team was the hardest—shoutout to all the amazing coaches who might be reading this! I don’t know how you all do it every year!

I think there are so many amazing, obvious benefits of Ethics Bowl. For many competitive young people like me, it’s a great chance to direct your energy into something that develops your reasoning and speaking skills alongside your moral compass. The main goal of Ethics Bowl is not winning, of course, but the competitive aspect draws many people in who would otherwise not engage and allows them to become far more considerate and thoughtful than they otherwise would have. For me and many others, though, I think the biggest benefit of Ethics Bowl is its ability to target “black and white” worldviews. I came into Ethics Bowl in high school thinking that I knew everything and that my views were obviously correct. If someone disagreed with me, then they were wrong. That was that. There was no middle ground or gray area. But year after year of this competition has given me an understanding of why other people think the way they do. I’ve been reminded so often that there are great arguments for and against essentially any seriousposition. I’ve learned that it’s harder to genuinelyput yourself in other people’s shoes than most people think. And in a time where having the most polarizing view is socially rewarded, striving for consensus and having a healthy uncertainty about your own views of the world is so hard. How lucky I was to have Ethics Bowl teaching me the value of those things, and guiding me towards the truth! 

If I had to give other teams advice to help them be more successful, the first thing I would say would be to not make too much out of individual wins and losses. I always caution my teammates from making too much out of one match or even one competition. In the words of NBA coach Gregg Poppovich, “When you win, you’re never as good as you thought you were, and when you lose, you’re never as bad.” Ultimately, just like any other competition, what happens in a single round of Ethics Bowl is often quite random. It’s much more productive to focus on the things you can control—after all, any 2-1 split between judges could have easily gone the other way. Even the littlest things, then, clearly do matter. A second piece of advice would be that answering the question goes beyond simply answering it at the beginning. I have noticed that a lot of teams directly answer the question they are given in their introduction and then proceed to give a presentation that answers the overall case rather than the specific question given to them. Competing teams, I think, are understandably more prepared for a general response to each case. But if you are a judge, you haven’t practiced general presentations on each case for months. The question in front of you is probably the thing that stands out most, so it’s important as a team to stick to the question that was actually asked. The last bit of advice I’d have stems from the fact that I’m a double major in economics and philosophy. My economics knowledge has come in handy to save the day so many times during rounds, especially during judges’ questions. Multi-disciplinary knowledge is so important in Ethics Bowl—especially in close rounds that end up being decided by just a point or two. That being said, I notice a lot of teams, even successful ones at nationals, struggle when asked foundational philosophical questions about the ethical concepts they use. In my humble opinion, it’s pretty hard to consistently win at nationals without having at least one or two team members well-versed in basic philosophical theory. 

As for what’s next for me, I will begin working in international tax later this summer in Miami following my graduation. My job will require lots of writing and verbal communication, skills that Ethics Bowl was incredibly important in developing for me. I’ll probably still help out my old William & Mary teammates here and there post-graduation, but if any colleges or tournament organizers in South Florida want a coach or assistant, reach out! Although my days of competing are over, I look forward to helping Ethics Bowl grow in so many other ways.

Congrats again to W&M and thanks again to Bernardo for the article! If anyone in South Florida would like to put his talents to good use, please reach out and I’d be honored to connect you.

Posted on

Extended Interview with Archie Stapleton

Special thanks to Archie Stapleton of the Modus Ponens Institute and TKEthics for the superb extended interview with Yours Truly. If you have the time and interest, check out the whole thing. Otherwise, Archie has kindly hyperlinked to the various topics, so feel free to jump straight to the section on the critique that philosophy encourages indecision, or my take on the role of religious moral reasoning in Ethics Bowl (and the public sphere generally), or on metaethics (in what way do moral claims have objective truth values – more on my thoughts on that here), or AI in education and Ethics Bowl. Enjoy!

00:00 Who Is Dr. Deaton? + Ethics Bowl to the Rescue

01:37 How Dr. Deaton Got Into Philosophy

05:17 What Is Ethics Bowl?

08:42 Saving Democracy by Transforming Debate

12:11 Is Philosophy Too Passive?

16:20 Religious Reasoning in Ethics Bowl

25:25 Metaethics: Are Moral Claims True?

35:30 Nihilism, Free Will, and Moral Meaning

39:16 AI Ethics: Superintelligence & Alignment

47:25 AI in Education: Cheating & Assessment

53:38 Should Ethics Bowl Teams Use AI?

55:54 Case Analysis: Professor Using ChatGPT

1:03:16 Do Ethical Theories Belong in Competition?

1:10:27 Is It Wrong for Professors to Use AI?

1:15:30 AI in Essay Competitions

1:20:13 What’s Next for MPI & TKEthics?

1:23:31 Closing Thoughts

Posted on

Consistency Across Cases – an Interview with Rachel Robinson-Greene

I recently finished The Ethics Bowl Way while camping and loved it. Every chapter is superb, but one that stood out is the closer by Utah State Assistant Professor of Philosophy and longtime Ethics Bowl supporter Rachel Robinson-Greene. I reached out, Rachel agreed to an email interview on a key point, and here it is!

Matt: Rachel, excellent closing chapter in The Ethics Bowl Way. I love how you share your experience flying to an Ethics Bowl after 9/11 and then discussing a case on racial profiling, and how you confessed to at one time conflating morality with legality. Even the best among us have made that mistake. But few of us have admitted it in print!

Rachel: Thank you! I was honored to be asked to contribute a chapter; the Ethics Bowl has been a huge part of my life for decades now and it was nice to take a broad view and reflect on my experiences.  I hope that some of the skills that Ethics Bowl teaches are intellectual humility and a willingness to recognize that you might be wrong about something.  I’ve been wrong about many things over the years, including many of the things I argued for as a student.

Matt: In the book you broach the importance of a team holding consistent views across a set of cases, something I may have considered in passing, but never paused to ponder. As you say in the book, “from a competitive standpoint, there is no reason why a team’s position on two different cases must be coherent.” A team can promote a stringent Utilitarian view in one round, then play exclusive Kantians the next. They can take a Libertarian approach during prelims, then invoke Marx himself in the semi-finals. In fact, a team could laud Virtue Ethics while presenting their argument as Team A, then attack Aristotle while providing commentary on Team B. There’s no explicit point incentive to behave differently, for “when judging is done right, each case exists in isolation.” However, can you talk a little about why coherence and consistency are important for ethically-minded folks generally, and also why it’s something Ethics Bowl teams might want to pursue, even if there’s no official requirement to do so?

Rachel: One of the challenges for teams when they construct positions is that members might have different perspectives from one another, and some might be more sympathetic to one ethical theory while another would prefer to argue from a different ethical perspective.  So, one of the reasons that coherence is not expected from one case to the next is that different people might have taken the lead on different cases.  That said, coherence is an important consideration when forming beliefs in general.  A lack of coherence can flag the existence of other critical thinking errors.  For instance, if one is willing to argue using one theory in one case, but unwilling to use it in another, similar case, that may be a sign that the conclusion is driving the argument rather than the other way around.  That said, many people are moral pluralists and think that different moral theories are appropriate in different domains of life.  It’s also important to recognize that coherence for its own sake is neutral, after all, a person can have a coherent set of world views that all turn out to be false. That said, a lack of coherence can draw our awareness to false or poorly formed premises in our arguments.  When students participating in Ethics Bowls observe inconsistency, it’s worth reflecting on why it exists.

Matt: Ah, excellent explanations as to why inconsistency might sometimes be OK  (because different team members with different moral views might have taken the lead on different cases), why consistency itself is ethically neutral (I can imagine Nazis who are consistent, if nothing else), and how a lack of consistency can indicate close-minded moral reasoning (as you put it, “a sign that the conclusion is driving the argument rather than the other way around”). Reflecting on this, I recall Rawls promoting the benefits of what he called “wide reflective equilibrium.” Narrow reflective equilibrium is achieved when our positions on a variety of issues are consistent not only with our considered convictions (moral intuitions that withstand scrutiny) but with one another, and when we can articulate a coherent defense of the full set, plausibly explaining how our view on environmental ethics meshes with our view on abortion, how our view on treatment of animals meshes with our views on immigration, and how all of these mesh with our intuitions. But as you pointed out, that doesn’t guarantee morally-laudable views – maybe Hitler was consistent. However, “wide” reflective equilibrium happens when we engage in conversation with others, share our reasoning with them, and work to develop a collectively held set of consistent and defendable views. It’s been a while since I’ve read Political Liberalism or Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. But I suspect the search for wide reflective equilibrium was motivated by Rawls’s belief that seeking consistency not only internally, but with humanity at large, was the best way to improve our views. Two heads are better than one, five (an Ethics Bowl team) better than two, thirteen (both teams plus the judges) better than five, and society at large earnestly and respectfully deliberating together (following the Ethics Bowl model) even better.

Rachel: I think that’s right. I hadn’t thought of it that way, but I think the Ethics Bowl is an excellent opportunity to practice arriving at reflective equilibrium both at an individual and at a group level.  I also think we can arrive at a similar conclusion through many normative theoretical frameworks.  I’m thinking in particular about John Stuart Mill’s arguments in On Liberty to the effect that we are all better off as a result of being exposed to a wide range of perspectives.  This is fundamental to the mission of the Ethics Bowl at the inter-team level; teams benefit from actively listening and carefully responding to the views of others.  It is also true at an intra-team level at which we may recognize a need for something different in a new case argued by a different team member.”

Matt: Rachel, thanks so much for taking the time. I love the book overall, but yours was an especially enjoyable chapter. Anything else you’d like to add?

Rachel:  Of course, this was fun. Thanks so much! I do have a book coming out in November, it’s called Edibility and In Vitro Meat: Ethical Considerations published by Lexington Books.  It’s on a topic we’ve debated in the Ethics Bowl in the past—cell cultured meat.  Anyone who enjoyed those discussions might enjoy the book as well!

Thank you, Rachel! Hoping this helps teams think more about how judgments on one case can inform and complement their views on other cases. And be sure to check out The Ethics Bow Way, as well as Edibility and In Vitro Meat, available for pre-order now, fully live Nov 30th. We’ll have to see what Rachel has to say about it, but lab-grown meat sounds like a wonderful win-win to me. Delicious nutrition without the cruelty of factory farming? Sign me up!

Posted on

How Factual Assumptions Drive Moral Disagreement and What Ethics Bowlers Can Do about It – an Interview with Justin McBrayer

Progress on Ethics Bowl to the Rescue! continues, and one submission I found especially insightful was from Fort Lewis philosophy professor and author of Beyond Fake News: Finding the Truth in a World of Misinformation, Justin McBrayer. Justin explains how disagreement over basic facts can drive substantial moral disagreement, even among people with shared values, something Ethics Bowlers often neglect. He graciously agreed to an email interview – enjoy!

Matt: Justin, I’d like to begin by quoting you. “Even if two people share all and only the same ethical values, they might come to radically different decisions about how to behave and what is right and wrong. That’s because they might be starting from different viewpoints about what is true or how the world is. So just as we need Ethics Bowl to help people think through their value commitments, we need a focus on applied epistemology so that people can think clearly about what the world is like.” Your point here is clear, but can you give an example?

Justin: Yes, and I think this sort of disagreement is becoming more and more common. For example, in the aftermath of the Roe decision, I notice that lots of people disagree about whether an Unborn Developing Human can feel pain, whether they have futures, whether they are conscious of particular things, etc. Those are all non-value issues. Sometimes when people change their minds about these non-value facts, they change their positions on moral issues. For example, if you come to believe that a UDH can experience fear and feel pain after 26 weeks, you might change your stance on when abortion is morally permissible.

Matt: That’s an excellent point, and probably explains why so many are baffled by others’ inability to appreciate moral truths obvious to them. Two people could be equally compassionate. It’s just that they hold different assumptions about an Unborn Developing Human’s ability to experience pain, whether it constitutes an entity with a future like ours, when its nervous system is developed enough to have thoughts, etc. The same could be true for differing assumptions about how burdensome pregnancy can be, what degree of choice women exercise when voluntarily engaging in sex, etc.

I’m wondering if anything can be said for how Ethics Bowl might ameliorate, exacerbate or otherwise address this. Is there anything coaches or rules committees or judges can do to help participants better recognize when differing assumptions are driving people with similar values to opposing conclusions? I would think that Ethics Bowl minimizes the impact of factual differences by stipulating facts right there in the case. Teams are allowed to do outside research. But it’s not expected or usually rewarded. Still, I can imagine teams disagreeing starkly over outcomes – whether a policy would make the world safer, contribute to climate change, discourage law-breaking, etc.

Justin: I agree with the first point: if we stipulate certain non-value facts at the outset, that will focus the attention on the values in play. But from my limited experience, Ethics Bowl cases don’t do a good job of this. They need to explicitly say things like (a) assume that 10,000 people will be harmed by this product each year or (b) the company’s decision will produce X amount of greenhouse gas or (c) the consumer is aware of the fact that the product is nutritionally useless. If we make it really obvious that teams can’t challenge those opening assumptions, the dialectic will be directed towards the value propositions that animate various applied ethical dilemmas.

Matt: You’re right. Cases do often leave a great deal open for teams to interpret. And when their factual assumptions diverge, so too will their moral conclusions. The interaction helps. But with so little time within a round, we can only expect so much. Maybe this is something we should coach teams to probe during their commentary? “Team A, your analysis seems to assume X. However, we actually thought Y was more likely. Would you agree that if Y were more likely, you’d actually endorse a different position?” Something like that might help participants better empathize, understand, appreciate and engage during prep, bowl day and beyond. And maybe that’s an early step in working together to identify more or less credible claims?

Justin: Right, so insofar as a case does NOT stipulate a certain non-value fact, we should encourage teams and judges (a) to recognize the non-value assumptions each side makes, (b) offer challenges to those assumptions and (c) offer objections that ask the other side how their conclusion would change if the non-value facts were altered in such-and-such a way. While we don’t want to go too far down the road of having teams try to evaluate and determine non-value facts (e.g. is pollution the main driver of climate change?), we DO want them to see that applied ethical conclusions typically rely on a non-value premise in the argument. Change that premise, and you’ll change what follows from your moral principle.

Matt: Agreed that we don’t want to turn Ethics Bowl into Research Bowl. But also agreed that all involved should appreciate how easily like-minded, reasonable people can arrive at very different conclusions – just takes disagreement over one key fact. And simply illuminating and making that disagreement explicit would advance the discussion. Thank you for making this even clearer than you already did, and for the encouragement to our coaches, teams and judges to listen carefully for differing assumptions. If nothing else, go ahead and stipulate facts and go from there. “If, for the sake of argument, we assume that a UDH after 26 weeks can feel pain…”

Justin: If you want an additional example besides abortion, climate change, vaccines, or just about any other polarized issue works. If you assume the vaccine is effective, then such-and-such follows.  If you assume it’s not, then… Again, a difference of belief about non-values often lies behind what seems like intractable moral debate. And I agree with you that we don’t want to make it a research bowl. But we can do a better job of being cognizant about how our non-value assumptions often drive our value conclusions. Keep up the good work on the book!

Posted on

Bob and Joanne Ladenson on Ethics Bowl’s Future

This article is based on an August, 2017 phone interview with Bob and Joanne Ladenson

As big as ethics bowl is today, creator Dr. Bob Ladenson remains the avuncular, soft-spoken phil prof the community loves and respects. Simply mention “Bob” to any ethics bowl organizer, intercollegiate through jr. high, and they’re likely to know exactly who you’re talking about, and just as likely to smile.

Bob’s principal collaborator, especially during the college bowl’s ramp up from isolated event to a formal two-tier structure, has been his wife, Joanne. Never heavy-handed, and always quick to share credit, the two have gently steered the initiative since its inception at Illinois Institute of Technology almost 25 years ago.

Now retired in California, I had the pleasure of chatting with Bob and Joanne on ethics bowl’s growth, how their view of its importance and benefits have changed over the years, and their thoughts on ethics bowl’s future.

Bob at 2013 National High School Ethics Bowl

Bob: When I quote “retired” – when I stepped down from being the head of the Ethics Bowl Executive Committee and Pat [Croskery] took over – I thought it was time. My dear friend and teacher Bernie Gert said, “The ethics bowl is like your child that’s grown up, and now it can go on its own.”

Going with the flow is too new-agey and breezy to put with my attitude. Rather, it’s like the ethics bowl is like my kids, who are adults. I hope it continues and flourishes.

The High School Ethics Bowl is really something. From the beginning I thought this would be great for high schools, but I could never figure out a way to move it forward. I was just delighted when Roberta [Israeloff] stepped up, for me out of the blue, and said this is something she wanted to work on developing.

Joanne: In terms of future directions to explore, if we can have tele-medicine, why can’t we have tele-ethics bowl?

Bob: At the Prindle Institute, for example, we have people who are much more technologically savvy than me and everyone in my generation. So maybe they’ll figure out a way to do this. My problem was that when we thought about doing it via media we could never keep the central objectives of ethics bowl intact.

Matt: That part of the future is actually here. I was involved in a brief webcam bowl a couple of years ago between high school teams in Tennessee, California, and Australia. The National High School Ethics Bowl has also held regional playoff rounds via Skype. I agree something’s lost when the teams and judges aren’t in the same room. But it’s less expensive and more convenient than traveling, with a lot of potential.

Joanne: I read a recent article in the Guardian about teenagers who use technology to communicate with their friends for everything… I’m thinking there might be some other ways to work with students not necessarily as a competition…

It’s critical for students to learn to listen, to respond respectfully, to find commonalities and areas of difference, to recognize that they may not always agree with each other but they can understand where the other person is coming from.

 

Indeed, these skills and attitudes are critical for the citizens of any successful democracy, and reason why Bob and Joanne’s contributions are so important.

We also discussed the apparent tension between ethics bowl’s competitive format and aim of fostering civility, how Bob and Joanne’s views on the appropriate role of ethical theory have changed as a result of witnessing so many bowls, and their thoughts on the source of the initiative’s sustained success.

Special thanks to Bob and Joanne for taking the time to chat, as well as for the gift of ethics bowl.