Harvard Ethics Bowl Team Finishes Top 8 Nationally
A relatively new team, formed at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, a group of seven Harvard undergraduate students advanced to the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl (APPE IEB) quarterfinals this weekend in St. Louis. More than 175 universities and colleges and 200 teams participated, with 36 teams advancing to nationals. Congratulations to members Brian Jeon ’27, Brandy Figueroa ’28, Jaehee Lee ’28, Katie Tian ’27, Aviva Di Paolo ’27, Alexa Ramirez ’27, and Elizabeth (Lizzy) Kim ’28!
Unlike a debate team, in an ethics bowl match, teams are not assigned “pro” and “con” sides of an issue. Rather, each team’s goal is to ensure it has identified the ethically relevant considerations relative to the issues raised by the assigned cases, analyze those considerations, and deliberate to a position. Likewise, the opposing team’s role is not necessarily to argue against the presenting team’s response, but to continue the discussion in a manner that exemplifies civil discourse regarding the best methods of ethical reasoning about complex, difficult to resolve, and highly viewpoint-dependent cases.
The teams receive their cases months in advance, but they do not know which questions will be asked and which cases will be discussed when. During each competition match, a case is selected from the set, and a moderator poses a question based on that case. These questions seek to delve deeper into the multiple ethical dimensions of the case. A panel of judges probes the teams for further justifications and evaluates answers.
Teams are judged across five criteria: clarity and organization; ethical analysis; deliberative thoughtfulness (does the team’s presentation include different viewpoints?); commentary on opposing team’s presentation and response to commentary (does it seek to deepen the ethical analysis of the case?); and response to judges’ questions.
A particularly lively round led students to consider whether it is ever ethically justifiable to be a fan or supporter of people convicted of violent crimes. Participants discussed vigilantism, and the difference and similarities between figures like Luigi Mangione and John Brown. Another round prompted students to deliberate if it were possible, would it be morally permissible to undergo the Lacuna memory treatment from the movie Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind. This question brought up the benefits of forgetting traumatic assaults and the costs of being unable to provide eyewitness testimony after viewing a potentially traumatizing violent crime.
I’m incredibly proud of this year's team. The students showed extraordinary dedication all season long, and I couldn't be happier to see their effort pay off with an outstanding performance. Their first time at Nationals in the team's five-year history, they managed to advance to the quarterfinals, where they were knocked out in a very close round to this year’s national runner-up. They should feel great about this season, and I’m excited to see this group build on that momentum in the years ahead.
The Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics supports Harvard's Undergraduate Ethics Society and its Ethics Bowl team, founded by former Undergraduate Fellow Jill Sharples. The team is coached by Civil Discourse Fellow Brian Palmiter, who teaches a new, Edmond & Lily Center for Ethics-run, ethics bowl course in the Harvard philosophy department. Ethics Society offers a completion-based curriculum for membership in the Fall. Weekly meetings throughout the semester introduce foundational ethical concepts and frameworks, equipping members with the argumentative and philosophical tools necessary for success in Ethics Bowl. No prior experience is required! Want to get involved? Email crimsonethics@gmail.com.