My team lost, it was egregiously unfair, and I swore a lot, because I'm a rebel. I did not confront the judges about this unfairness though, because I did not want to confirm their authority as competent judges. Heh, that's right, I have the ethical highground here.
Checked the score and saw you guys placed 17th out and had a negative score over all, it seems like you might be upset about being a below average team rather than an injustice bc of a judge
Heh, no doubt a possibility. But the Skyline team at the bottom of the bracket were national champs two years ago (same people on the team!) and I know them to be very smart and thoughtful. Gives me the sense that a lot of the judges care more about ‘do I agree with you?’ than ‘is your argument well made?’
Hello, so I happen to be the person that made the distasteful comment on the WIHI Yogurt Parfits team. First off I want to say that I am sorry for my stance, I tried to do an argument of extremes to show how an animal's natural tendencies shouldn't be considered in an ethical case and I did not pick my words carefully enough given the lack of time that I had(or the perceived lack of time given that it was a competition and I was stressed). I apologize for my wrong doing and if I had to do it all over again I would have picked a different example like grizzly bears, ducks, octopi, or otters to make my point and not cause this harmful of a misconception. Secondly, this article does not reflect the opinions of every person in WIHI or on Ethics Bowl, in terms of myself I know that you guys are simply better then our team and I am very happy that we had a chance to play you guys and learn from that match going forward. Hope you guys have fun next year, I will be rooting for you guys to make it!
Hey, thanks for reading! Small world, or something...
I'm gonna quote you misleadingly in order to make a point, sorry: "it's an inevitable aspect of something as subjective as Ethics." Oops! See https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/whats-the-point-of-being-righteous for a bit more discussion, but basically, nah. Ethics aren't subjective, and ethics bowl doesn't have to be either! This is why I made the distinction between philosophy professors & amateur ethicists: the former tend to be able to consider the case you're making on its merits, whereas the latter default to political stance-taking.
"it seems a bit pointless to protest what can be called human nature"
Maybe so, but at the risk of being a total drama queen, slavery could for a long while have been "called human nature"—still worthwhile to protest it. Also see Bentham's Bulldog on why incremental change for the better is, in fact, a good thing: https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-addressing-root-causes
"the use of a theory as normative as utilitarianism is already kind of weak especially when the argument is that 'all animals should be domesticated'"
Decent chance I'll never be able to live that one down... but "wild animal suffering is bad and we should pick the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing it" ≠ "all animals should be domesticated." Also, what's wrong with using normative theories? Utilitarianism is very good at solving lots of problems—no reason it should be a weak base for argument.
"your team might've said something completely out of pocket (like when the guy from the other WiHi team made a really distasteful comment about rape...)"
First thing: he's sorry if that comment was harmful in any way, but says he mostly just felt rushed and presented the analogy imperfectly. Second: distasteful ≠ wrong! I argued for chemically castrating fish, and the other WIHI guy was trying to make the point that 'naturalness' doesn't affect morality—if humans naturally wanted to rape each other all the time, that would still be wrong. These are both good arguments, independent of the words "castration" or "rape" being tasteful or not.
Not sure if you're calling me or the Bowl insane. Either way, thanks I guess!
Hm, I find myself disagreeing with sooo much of this still, but less, so thanks for clarifying.
The boundaries of "nature" seem really hard to define, especially in a way that will include 'complex cognitive biases that require higher-order reasoning to overcome' and exclude 'thing that everyone did to each other for hundreds of millennia until they realized how awful it was using higher-order reasoning.' But point taken that the ability to convince an amateur or uninformed person is a good skill, I hadn't entirely considered that. Though it does turn the Bowl into a contest of rhetoric more than philosophy... which is ok! I suppose! (I prefer a contest of philosophy though.)
On determining utility and how animal suffering should be thought about: you're right that it's hard, but I think it's much more possible than you're giving it credit for. I've been meaning to do a full write-up, hopefully I will soon—until then, Bentham's Bulldog is evergreen: https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-worst-thing-in-the-world-isnt. Ooh, also in "eliminating animal suffering through domestication has some (un)ethical implications," I see hints of the fallacy of gray (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallacy-of-gray), though that might be an uncharitable reading.
Certainly lots of relativism involved with the idea of distasteful or harmful speech. I like to err on the side of freer discourse, but understand why you might take a different tack.
Hopefully, if I ever get around to writing more of my thoughts out, you're willing to comment there too. Appreciate getting your viewpoint!
My team lost, it was egregiously unfair, and I swore a lot, because I'm a rebel. I did not confront the judges about this unfairness though, because I did not want to confirm their authority as competent judges. Heh, that's right, I have the ethical highground here.
Checked the score and saw you guys placed 17th out and had a negative score over all, it seems like you might be upset about being a below average team rather than an injustice bc of a judge
Heh, no doubt a possibility. But the Skyline team at the bottom of the bracket were national champs two years ago (same people on the team!) and I know them to be very smart and thoughtful. Gives me the sense that a lot of the judges care more about ‘do I agree with you?’ than ‘is your argument well made?’
Hello, so I happen to be the person that made the distasteful comment on the WIHI Yogurt Parfits team. First off I want to say that I am sorry for my stance, I tried to do an argument of extremes to show how an animal's natural tendencies shouldn't be considered in an ethical case and I did not pick my words carefully enough given the lack of time that I had(or the perceived lack of time given that it was a competition and I was stressed). I apologize for my wrong doing and if I had to do it all over again I would have picked a different example like grizzly bears, ducks, octopi, or otters to make my point and not cause this harmful of a misconception. Secondly, this article does not reflect the opinions of every person in WIHI or on Ethics Bowl, in terms of myself I know that you guys are simply better then our team and I am very happy that we had a chance to play you guys and learn from that match going forward. Hope you guys have fun next year, I will be rooting for you guys to make it!
Judas.
Hey, thanks for reading! Small world, or something...
I'm gonna quote you misleadingly in order to make a point, sorry: "it's an inevitable aspect of something as subjective as Ethics." Oops! See https://mistakesweremade.substack.com/p/whats-the-point-of-being-righteous for a bit more discussion, but basically, nah. Ethics aren't subjective, and ethics bowl doesn't have to be either! This is why I made the distinction between philosophy professors & amateur ethicists: the former tend to be able to consider the case you're making on its merits, whereas the latter default to political stance-taking.
"it seems a bit pointless to protest what can be called human nature"
Maybe so, but at the risk of being a total drama queen, slavery could for a long while have been "called human nature"—still worthwhile to protest it. Also see Bentham's Bulldog on why incremental change for the better is, in fact, a good thing: https://benthams.substack.com/p/against-addressing-root-causes
"the use of a theory as normative as utilitarianism is already kind of weak especially when the argument is that 'all animals should be domesticated'"
Decent chance I'll never be able to live that one down... but "wild animal suffering is bad and we should pick the low-hanging fruit when it comes to reducing it" ≠ "all animals should be domesticated." Also, what's wrong with using normative theories? Utilitarianism is very good at solving lots of problems—no reason it should be a weak base for argument.
"your team might've said something completely out of pocket (like when the guy from the other WiHi team made a really distasteful comment about rape...)"
First thing: he's sorry if that comment was harmful in any way, but says he mostly just felt rushed and presented the analogy imperfectly. Second: distasteful ≠ wrong! I argued for chemically castrating fish, and the other WIHI guy was trying to make the point that 'naturalness' doesn't affect morality—if humans naturally wanted to rape each other all the time, that would still be wrong. These are both good arguments, independent of the words "castration" or "rape" being tasteful or not.
Not sure if you're calling me or the Bowl insane. Either way, thanks I guess!
Hm, I find myself disagreeing with sooo much of this still, but less, so thanks for clarifying.
The boundaries of "nature" seem really hard to define, especially in a way that will include 'complex cognitive biases that require higher-order reasoning to overcome' and exclude 'thing that everyone did to each other for hundreds of millennia until they realized how awful it was using higher-order reasoning.' But point taken that the ability to convince an amateur or uninformed person is a good skill, I hadn't entirely considered that. Though it does turn the Bowl into a contest of rhetoric more than philosophy... which is ok! I suppose! (I prefer a contest of philosophy though.)
On determining utility and how animal suffering should be thought about: you're right that it's hard, but I think it's much more possible than you're giving it credit for. I've been meaning to do a full write-up, hopefully I will soon—until then, Bentham's Bulldog is evergreen: https://benthams.substack.com/p/the-worst-thing-in-the-world-isnt. Ooh, also in "eliminating animal suffering through domestication has some (un)ethical implications," I see hints of the fallacy of gray (https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2CoRCgeC2mPgj/the-fallacy-of-gray), though that might be an uncharitable reading.
Certainly lots of relativism involved with the idea of distasteful or harmful speech. I like to err on the side of freer discourse, but understand why you might take a different tack.
Hopefully, if I ever get around to writing more of my thoughts out, you're willing to comment there too. Appreciate getting your viewpoint!