CFA: 2019 Ethics and Broader Considerations of Technology Conference (University of Nebraska–Lincoln)

University of Nebraska–Lincoln have sent out a call for abstracts for their 2019 Ethics and Broader Considerations of Technology Conference. Submissions should be on topics of ethics and technology. This conference is open to both undergraduate and graduate students. Prof. Tubert will be a featured speaker at this conference.

Submission Deadline: June 15, 2019
Conference Dates: October 31–November 2, 2019

Students are also invited to create a game about ethics and technology for the The Ethics and Technology Game Jam.

For more information about submission requirements, featured speakers, or other conference inquiries, visit the conference website.

2019 Fall Ethics and Technology conference

UPS Ethics Bowl Team Competes in First Ever Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW)

The Puget Sound Ethics Bowl team competed in the first ever Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl at the Washington Corrections Center for Women (WCCW) on April 14, 2019. The University of Puget Sound and the the Freedom Education Project Puget Sound (FEPPS) teams debated questions such as: Should we bring back species that have been driven to extinction? Are laws allowing terminally ill children to choose euthanasia morally defensible? Is China’s social credit system, which assigns a social credit score based on behavior, morally justified? Do wealthy nations owe a climate debt obligation toward less-wealthy nations? 

FEPPS describes their mission as being:

A rigorous college program for incarcerated women, trans-identified and gender nonconforming people in Washington and creates pathways to higher education after students are released from prison. Our goals are to increase FEPPS students’ economic and personal empowerment, contribute to family stability and reduce recidivism through college education.

The event was sponsored by Freedom Education Project Puget Sound and the University of Washington, Philosophy Department.

This event was also made possible by Paul Tubig, a Philosophy PhD candidate at University of Washington. In addition to coaching the FEPPS team, Paul established ethics bowl at WCCW and organized the event.

Visit the FEPPS Facebook page to read more about the event.

58380858_2007416232697173_7078116003707617280_o

Left table: FEPPS ethics bowl team

Middle table: Puget Sound Ethics Bowl team

Right table: Judges and moderator

58462147_2007416406030489_7979820060808052736_o58612873_2007416789363784_6192919103653543936_o

Paul Tubig

58812178_2007416566030473_5315909983223676928_o.jpg

Puget Sound Students Competed in 2019 National Bioethics Bowl

On April 5–6, students on the Puget Sound Ethics Bowl and their coach, Prof. Tubert, traveled to Mobile, AL to compete in the National Bioethics Bowl at University of South Alabama.

The National Bioethics Bowl is a college-level collaborative presentation and debate about pressing ethical issues in biomedicine and technology. Months prior to the competition, each team receives a case packet containing 15 cases about bioethical dilemmas. Each team conducts research relevant to the individual cases and defend a position using ethical reasoning and argumentation. The bowl entails several rounds of debate. In each round, two teams are given time to present their position and argument for a given case they prepared. Following each presentation, teams have the opportunity to hear and respond to replies from the opposing team. Finally, the teams engage in a Q&A session with judges who included professionals in healthcare, government, and philosophy.

Some of the cases the Puget Sound team presented on were about unrepresented patients, CRISPR babies, and therapeutic misconception.

Students reflected on the value of participating in this bowl:

Liam Grantham ’20: “Debating our positions against another team made us stronger public speakers and improved our ability to act professionally (even when we strongly believe our opponents’ position is flawed)…I would definitely recommend the ethics bowl club to other people who are genuinely interested in ethics as much as we are. It sometimes takes a lot to come to a consensus on some of the cases we were given, but if you are passionate about ethics (doing the right thing), then it is absolutely worth it.” 

Colleen Hanson ’19: “Bioethics bowl is … a necessary space to discuss pressing ethical dilemmas in medicine and biotechnology. There will always be a need for people to critically reflect and make decisions on these issues. Bioethics bowl integrates students and experts from various disciplines and backgrounds, providing a robust and diverse pool of perspectives. As such, I think bioethics bowl is an essential activity not only in the types of skills it develops in students, but in the purpose it serves for the greater bioethics field.”

Simone Moore ’20: “…this experience not only helped us strengthen our rhetorical skills, but challenged us to interrogate and apply the foundational philosophical information that we have gathered through our time at UPS thus far. I feel fortunate that I was able to participate in an event such as this, and I hope that I will be able to do it again…”

Holden Chen ’20: The event was certainly competitive, but at the same time, it was one that prompted a deliberative process that goes beyond itself. We now have familiarity with these timely ethical issues and have acquired the skills and knowledge to develop strong positions, but it doesn’t just stop there for us. The very fact that we were challenged at the competition shows that there’s always more to engage with and consider. The ethical discussions don’t stop, and we as ethicist of the now and of the future have come away from the experience with more appreciation for the process.”

August Malueg ’20: “Ethics bowl has helped me develop strong public speaking skills and has made me more confident in my ability to relate my thoughts to others… In Mobile I had the opportunity to meet students from various universities that traveled to the competition (such as Depauw and Loyola Chicago), as well as locals, who were overwhelmingly hospitable and welcoming. I think it is important to keep ethics bowl active at the university and to continue offering students the chance to travel to compete because it not only helps them in the professional and social sense, but also because they have the opportunity to continue to have novel experiences abroad.” 

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_19aTop: Holden Chen ’20, Simone Moore ’20, Professor Ariela Tubert, August Malueg ’20, Liam Grantham ’20 / Bottom: Colleen Hanson ’19

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_199

UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_197UNADJUSTEDNONRAW_thumb_198

IMG_4918

Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity 2019 Prize in Ethics Essay Contest

The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity has announced their 2019 Prize in Ethics Essay Contest. The Foundation challenges college level juniors and seniors to submit their work analyzing the urgent ethical issues confronting them in today’s complex world.
The submission deadline is Friday, December 14, 2018 at 5pm PST.

Awards:

  • First Prize – $ 5,000
  • Second Prize – $ 2,500
  • Third Prize – $ 1,500
  • Two Honorable Mentions – $ 500 Each

Eligibility:

  • Registered undergraduate full-time Juniors or Seniors at accredited four-year colleges or universities in the United States during the Fall 2018 Semester.

2019 Essay Topic:

Articulate with clarity an ethical issue that you have encountered and analyze what it has taught you about ethics and yourself. Note that the most engaging essays often reflect deeply on a particularly meaningful experience or episode in one’s life. That approach could focus ethical reflection on:

A personal issue
A family matter
A travel incident
An academic inquiry
A dilemma in literature or film
A recent article or editorial in a major newspaper
A current conflict in American life
An international crisis

Write about any specific topic you wish, provided it explores an ethical problem, question, issue, or concern.

For more information please visit their website.

Samantha Lilly ’19: “An Ethnographic, Experimental Philosophical Inquiry into Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Suicidality.”

Philosophy major Samantha Lilly ’19 received a Summer Research Award in the Humanities and Social Sciences (information on the Summer Research Grants in Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences is available here). She describes her experience working on her summer research project under the supervision of Prof. Andrew Gardner in the Department of Sociology & Anthropology:
My summer research was an attempt to amalgamate the logical approach of my philosophy major, with the data collection methods of the ethnographer, to be able to better answer a fundamental question of philosophy, “is suicide wrong?” The philosophical approach to answering questions gives me the ability to utilize logic to create normative claims about how things ought to be. In other words, philosophical research allows me to answer the question, “is suicide wrong?” while ethnography gives me the substantiated qualitative data to answer  the essential follow-up question, “how do we know?”
Spring semester 2018, I finished research designed to help answer the very question my current research is aimed at solving. My spring research, however, investigated the United States mental health care system’s understanding of suicidality. I sought the accounts of the mental health care professionals’ run-ins with suicidal behaviors and stories they encountered with their patients. Here, I used the same ethnographic methodology as a warrant for different normative ethical claims on how the United States Mental Healthcare System ought to approach their understanding of mental health, illness, and suicide.
This summer, my research shifted its focus from the contradictory medical model of mental health to individuals who have been bereaved by suicide.  The ethnographic research design utilized semi-structured interviews to collect data from thirteen individuals who have lost a loved one by suicide. The research design also included elements of participant observation conducted within a suicide bereavement group located within the state of Washington. These people all varied in age (20 years old to 80 years old), in walks of life, and in grieving experiences. Some participants lost mothers and brothers, whereas others, lost daughters and partners. After transcribing and coding each of the interviews, I found that each interviewee reported grieving in a way that strays significantly from the traditional grief model and the typical reactions portrayed by modern media. What is more, is that with each story of death, heartache, and grief, each individual described an extreme confusion in how to feel toward their loved one and how they ended up dying. Ultimately, my summer research revealed a unique expectation placed on individuals bereaved by suicide; on the one hand, they are told and expected to understand their loved one’s death as irrational (as a result of mental illness), and on the other, they are expected and told to hold their loved one accountable, i.e., “they chose to kill themselves”, “they left me”, etc.
Philosophically speaking, the ways survivors understand their loved one’s death are at odds with one another. They are told to pin tricky discussions concerning free will against conversations on moral culpability. My job as a researcher and philosopher continues as I attempt to parse out ethical and normative ways we can mitigate this confusion and harm done—not only to those who have been bereaved— but those who have died as well.
IMG-0849

Would You Get a Beer With Voldemort? A Recap of Neal Tognazzini’s Lecture

Earlier this semester, Western Washington University philosophy professor Neal Tognazzini gave the talk, “Silence and Salience: The Ethics of Being Judgmental.” In an article Anneli Fogt published about the lecture, Fogt recalls:

Roughly 50 students filled a Wyatt Hall classroom one Friday evening to hear him give a lecture called “Silence and Salience: The Ethics of Being Judgmental,” in which he addressed ethical dilemmas relating to judgment. He focused on the crucial link between judgment, moral standing, and relationships.

For example, when a child throws a tantrum in a restaurant, disturbed diners might shoot the parents angry looks or grumble to their friends. Neal explained that whether or not the diners are right that the parents are to blame for the situation, without a relationship to the parents, they don’t have the moral standing to judge them.

For the full article about the lecture, visit this link.