Category: Uncategorized

“Above all, I’m in awe of the book’s style and tone. It’s not easy to write philosophically about abortion – a subject that’s both, and equally, deep from a conceptual standpoint and emotionally wrenching in real-life… You found an effective way to write about abortion that’s accessible to undergraduates (and also, possibly to high school students). Your discussion not only is informed philosophically but also conveys to me a sense of supportive engagement of a kind one would experience if she/he had a good candid discussion, with a good friend, on a topic that’s both emotionally difficult and intellectually challenging. Bravo.” ~The Extremely Kind and Generous Creator of Ethics Bowl, Illinois Institute of Technology Philosophy Professor Emeritus, Dr. Bob Ladenson

Last April I posted an article calling for more ethics bowl cases on abortion. It’s a topic case committees have understandably avoided, but also one that the ethics bowl community could help address (if not us, who?). Little did I know the Supreme Court’s forthcoming Roe decision would leak and interest in the issue would explode.

Fast forward to the weekend before last, when I took my nephew Ethan skydiving for his high school graduation. Jumping out of a perfectly good airplane was HIS idea, not mine. But I did enjoy it (the 10-second freefall was pure bliss), and when you’re riding shotgun in a tiny plane about to plunge 10,000 feet, trusting that the tandem dude strapped to your back will monitor altitude and safely delivery your exhilarated body back to earth alive, this encourages reflection. Deep, meaningful reflection.

One good decision that came from that experience – to give away my books! My bills are paid and they’ll help more people if free, so why not? Plus, I’ve given away Ethics in a Nutshell via email and here at EthicsBowl.org on the Resources page for years, and it sells more than the others combined. So in the coming weeks I’ll be sharing the audiobook versions of all my books on YouTube, and will post the full PDFs on my website. Those that are relevant to ethics bowl (Ethics in a Nutshell on audiobook, The Best Public Speaking Book in PDF and audiobook), I’ll also mention here.

Mixing audiobooks MP3s, splicing together video animations, adding chapter headings and uploading files isn’t difficult, but it is tedious. But over the Memorial Day weekend I made time to share the full audiobook version of Abortion Ethics in a Nutshell: A Pro-Both Tour of the Moral Arguments on YouTube. It’s embedded above and available directly here.

There are other excellent abortion ethics books out there. However, none other than ethics bowl creator Bob Ladenson blessed mine with the overly-generous recommendation above, proudly shared with his permission. I’m not prone to bragging. But when the creator of ethics bowl endorses your book, you tell people. (Thank you, Bob!)

If you enjoy my summaries of the best abortion arguments philosophers have offered, and appreciate the pro-BOTH approach, tell a friend. If you’d like to use it in the classroom, be my guest – find notes and discussion questions in the first comment, and be on the lookout for the full PDF at MattDeaton.com soon (shoot me an email if you can’t wait). Also be ready for a surprise happy ending (one that more people from both sides of the traditional debate should be talking about) in chapters 11, 12 and 13… And enjoy British voice actor Carla Rose Smith’s velvety section intros, the perfect complement to my mild Southern drawl.

If you’re a high school student (or coach a team of high school students) and have a few extra hours this weekend, there’s still time to enter the NHSEB’s case-writing competition. From an email shared on the 22^nd:

• “Eligibility: All currently enrolled high school students in the United States are eligible to enter.
• Submission Deadline: March 1, 2022
• Winner Announcement: April 10, 2022
• Grand Prize: The author of the case selected will be awarded a $500 prize.
• Honorable Mentions: Two prizes of $250 will be awarded to other distinguished cases”

For additional details, click here. And if you accept the challenge and would like me to review a draft, just send it to matt (at) mattdeaton.com by midnight Saturday.

This guest post is by Isabelle Friedberg of the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals, a student-run, fully online ethics bowl platform. EthicsBowl.org welcomes guest case analyses, coaching tips and other posts – reach out via the Contact page if you’d like to contribute.

Bill Gates is the largest private owner of farmland in the United States. According to news reports, he owns 268,984 acres of farmland, across 19 states in the country. His farmland portfolio totals more than $690 million in value. For comparison, the amount of United States farmland purchased by Gates is approximately the size of Hong Kong. Although there is a corporate entity purchasing the land, neither Gates nor his agents have explained the purpose of buying so much farmland, much of it very valuable and nutrient-rich. Some speculate that Gates’ climate concerns may drive his interest, especially since farming and ranching contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Other perspectives are that there is no explicit purpose, he is just diversifying his financial portfolio, which he has a right to do. 

Although Gates owns the most farmland, he is not the largest U.S. landowner. Billionaire John Malone, the former CEO of Liberty Media, is in the number one position, and owns approximately 2.2 million acres of land, roughly twice the size of Rhode Island. Ted Turner owns 2 million acres. Jeff Bezos ranks 25th for private landowners, above Gates, and the famous Ford, Hearst, Koch and Reynolds families all rank in the top 100 landowners. 

These patterns, of individuals in unique positions of wealth, buying and privately owning extensive parcels of U.S. land, including valuable, irreplaceable farmland, raises the philosophical question of whether it is ethical for one person, even if they have the unusual resources to do so, to individually possess so much of the earth itself. In looking for ethical answers, a good place to start is John Locke’s Two Treatises on Civil Government. In the work, Locke, the English philosopher considered to be the father of the  Enlightenment, who made important contributions to the development of liberalism, makes several arguments relating to the ethical ownership of property. Locke believes that a person may only appropriate as much property as one needs or can use to continue life. (Two Treatises 2.31). He also believes one must leave “enough and as good” for others. (Two Treatises 2.27). 

Looking at billionaire land purchases from a Lockean perspective, it is arguable that he individuals have exceeded the amount of land that they ethically should be able to accumulate. We can assume from their publicized wealth, that they don’t actually need the land to continue their lives in a reasonable way and exist soundly in nature. In a world of finite resources and limited land itself, large purchases, especially of valuable soil-rich lands that can be used for growing, runs contrary to the Lockean idea of leaving “enough and as good” for others. 

Other concerns above the ideological ones, are the practical ones in allowing such extensive ownership. What if private landholders choose to use their purchases unethically? Could the purchases ever result in more limited food supply for others? Should several individuals get to make large decisions about land-use for a global world? The ethical dilemmas raised here are important questions to think about in an ever-changing world.

People are reluctant to discuss abortion for three main reasons: 1) our views on abortion are often entangled with our political and religious allegiances, and therefore our very identities. 2) Deep down, we know sweeping pro-this or pro-that positions are grossly oversimplified and subject to criticism. And 3) 1 combined with 2 leads to insecurity, rationalizations and hostile denialism, even among the most enlightened. Our culture pretends we have to be either generally for or against abortion – sophistication and nuance aren’t allowed. So we sheepishly align with one camp or the other, saving our influence for safer topics.

But as as ethics bowlers, we know better. We know abortion is a complicated issue with competing legitimate values, requiring careful examination and balance. We know the pro-vs-pro dilemma is a sad political artifact. We know our culture can and should do better, and that we have the power to lead it out of the current corrosive impasse.

It’s past time the ethics bowling community tackled abortion head-on. If any group can destigmatize and enrich abortion ethics discussion, it’s us. So case-writing committees, do your thing, please.

A preview of my new abortion ethics book is below. If you’re a case-writer, coach or competitor inspired to dig deeper, please let me know how I can help. Let’s bring our collective wisdom and thoughtfulness to bear on this most divisive of issues. Let’s help the world begin to treat abortion with the honesty and care it deserves.

Yes. Thanks to ethics bowl pioneers at UC Santa Cruz, including our friend Kyle Robertson, and judged by none other than original ethics bowl founder Bob Ladenson.

This is amazing, and so encouraging. Thanks to everyone involved, including the very well-prepared and eloquent team from San Quentin Prison.

Ethics Bowl at San Quentin State Prison from Center for Public Philosophy on Vimeo.

I recently met author and educational consultant Jonathan Haber at the American Philosophical Association’s annual Eastern Division meeting. Having just presented on how ethics bowl enthusiasts have leveraged the web (team collaboration, volunteer registration, awesome blogs), Haber asked me and the other panelists about ways to encourage journalists to improve the quality of their inferences.

As he explained, media-types are used to fact checking. But many feel unqualified, and possibly a little defensive, about logic checking. This is why he set up LogicCheck.net, a website devoted to helping journalists improve the quality of their reasoning. The tagline: Check the Facts. Understand the Argument. Know the Truth.

I suggested highlighting examples of well-reasoned journalism and possibly adding a gentle rating system. The examples could serve as models. And the ratings could encourage journalists to review their inferences before clicking “publish.”

Well, I was pleased to receive a message from Haber this week that he had featured a well-argued editorial by Houston Chronicle staff and awarded it “five dumbbells” as an especially strong argument.

Titled, “Purge of Trump, Parler Show Big Tech Firms Have Too Much Power,” the Chronicle’s argument is indeed evenhanded and reasonable. As Haber points out, the authors don’t marginalize the legitimate values in tension: freedom of expression vs. safety, stability and truth. Their proposed solution (putting more responsibility on platforms, authors and communities to self-monitor, with some light government oversight) follows well enough rom the premises. And it’s both measured and respectfully offered.

Written in the mature, civil style of philosophers at their best, it’s indeed a fine example of a quality argument. Kudos to the Houston Chronicle for their responsible journalism, and kudos to Haber and LogicCheck.net for featuring it. Check out the article and analysis for yourself here.

While you’re there, peruse the site, see what you might learn under Argumentation, More -> Fallacies or Logic-Checker.

Now, who’s the former ethics bowler writing for the Chronicle?

In response to COVID-related bowl cancellations, two ambitious students in New York recently launched the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals. Press release below – kudos to Isabelle and Holly for taking the initiative! Check it out yourself at eethicsbowl.com.

We formed NEEBI, the National E-Ethics Bowl Intramurals, to create a national student-led club where any student in the country can participate in our essay contests, or attend our zoom events to talk about ethics issues, or even do some informal ethics debating. We were very motivated to make friends throughout the country who, like us, love ethics. 

There are so many divisions in our country, and it was our hope that a national student ethics club would be a great way to create student unity, and get students talking to each other about important issues in a fun way, and enjoying each other’s company.

In addition to our essay contests and zoom meetings, we plan to start a “Bulletin Board” page listing different ethics events coming up during the year in different schools, organizations and universities so that there is one  “go-to” place for high school students looking for ethics-activities, especially summer experiences and courses.  We are also considering a “Congratulations” page to celebrate winners in the Ethics community of different events if students wish to send in their accomplishments. Finally, we would love for other students to form chapters of NEEBI in their geographic regions, and we can recognize those Chapter Leaders on our website with their names and bios and advertise their separate meeting dates.

We feel that philosophy is a great unifier, leads to critical thinking, and should be invested in at high schools. It is our greatest hope to reach students who do not have Ethics Clubs in their own schools to give them more opportunities to meet and to debate ethical issues informally and with new friends everywhere. – Isabelle Friedberg and Holly Hanlon

My friend Jamey spent a total of 6 years in prison. Today he’s free and thriving. And just a few months ago, he got married. I asked him to review NHSEB case 10, Dating After Prison. What were his thoughts?

A natural athlete, Jamey had been a star running back in elementary school. He was fast. Scary fast. “Who’s that little white blur?” fast.

Then in the 7th grade he developed chronic knee pain. No longer the fastest, his popularity and self-esteem took a hit, and he turned to substance abuse.

A couple of years into high school his knees were better, but the bad habits remained. He switched to a vocational track to graduate, and played well enough to earn a football scholarship. It was in college that Jamey got his first opportunity to sell drugs. He found that he was naturally good at that, too.

A drug dealer’s life doesn’t mesh well with the demands of higher education. And when the college experiment failed, the downward spiral accelerated. Jail time became prison time, and winning $50k from a scratch-off lottery ticket just made things worse.

The above excerpt is from Year of the Fighter: Lessons From My Midlife Crisis Adventure, my 2018 memoir on how an ethicist overcomes childhood bully shame by doing something he’d always dreamed of doing – competitively boxing and kickboxing.

Jamey was a teammate, mentor and coach at my boxing gym, Monroe County Boxing Club. He taught me how to not to not be “a moving punching bag,” how to use my endurance as a weapon, and how to push my body into beastmode and beyond.

When we met, he’d already done significant time behind bars. And while boxing kept him straight for a while, he relapsed and found himself in trouble with the law once again. The judge gave him the option to either go back to prison or to Miracle Lake, a rustic Christin rehab facility near Etowah, Tennessee. Jamey took the chance, and the experience changed his life.

He’s been clean and straight ever since, and this summer my family attended a beautiful outdoor wedding where he wed his soulmate, Petyon. I remember when Jamey and Peyton first began dating, and I was there when he proposed during intermission at the annual Monroe County Boxing Club Rumble. So when I read case 10, he immediately came to mind.

He agreed to discuss it, and explained that when he graduated from Miracle Lake and thought about dating again, he wanted to be as transparent as possible about his past.

So he shared his background on his Facebook page, regularly posting about the dark places he’d been, and how much better life was on the other side. He would also share his testimony at church, which is where he and Peyton met. As Jamey put it, “I didn’t want anyone to feel deceived. I wanted to be accepted for who I was.”

However, while he wanted church friends and love interests to know as soon as possible, he didn’t think disclosing his prison time was as important for casual friendships (see ethics bowl case discussion question #3).

“About the friendship thing, that’s not as important to reveal right up front… You wouldn’t want her to find out and feel misled. But with dudes, it may not even come up for a long time. But Peyton, she knew everything. I feel that was important.”

In contrasting the gentlemen in the ethics bowl case (Antoine and Jack – see discussion question #2), Jamey thought they were clearly different. “There’s definitely a moral difference due to the type of crime and their time in prison. One was innocent, the other admitted it.”

Jamey argued that the differing amount of time served by Antoine and Jack – Antoine, 8 years, and Jack, 27– was especially relevant.

“The longer you’re in there, away from society, the more of a criminal mind you could have. Not everyone, but someone doing that much time is definitely going to be different. Their frame of mind – someone doing that much time – it becomes truly institutionalized.”

The implication seems to be that a person would have a stronger obligation to reveal their prison time sooner when a) they were guilty, b) their crime was violent and c) lengthy prison time had altered their character in negative ways. These are all things a potential life partner would want to know. And so Jamey argues they’re better to share immediately in the interests of building trust.

However, Sequoyah High School Ethics Bowl team member Juli Brackett argues sharing prison time could and should wait until the third date. Why date #3?

First dates are often shallow chit-chat. Second dates, when they happen, suggest agreement that there’s long-term potential. But by the third date, it’s clear both parties are open to a serious commitment. The emotional attachment approaches an unspoken but significant threshold. And that’s when someone who’s been to prison should disclose it, argues Juli.

Why not share it on or before date #1? Juli argues this could sabotage what could become a beautiful happily-ever-after. If everyone shared their darkest secrets up-front, no one would get married. Waiting puts both parties in a better position to put past mistakes into context.

The up-front approach worked for Jamey. But maybe he was especially charming. Or maybe the fact that he and Peyton met at church reassured her he was a changed man.

Whether Juli’s or Jamey’s approach is morally best is arguable. But three factors that seem unarguably relevant: 1) whether the person was guilty, 2) the nature of their crime, and 3) time served and its impact on their character.

As mentioned in a previous article, it’s helpful to organize bowl cases’ key details, primary moral considerations, your team’s position and at least one objection/response using a “case summary matrix” for quick reference and review.

These are good not only for the months leading up to the bowl, but also for coaching between rounds – especially later in the bowl, when many of the cases have already been covered, so your team can identify and focus on those remaining (I’ll draw a line through each as the even unfolds, and we’ll focus post-lunch on the half dozen left).

Here’s a slightly edited version of the case summary matrix my team used for our NHSEB Regional this past weekend. Not every view meshed with my own thinking or even each team member’s individual thinking. But these were roughly the positions and considerations the team developed, studied and initially used (though few views survive the thought experiment curveballs during the judges Q&A) – hoping you find the examples and/or structure helpful.

And if the text is too small or you’d like to use the editable file, just email (matt (at) mattdeaton.com) – happy to share.