Ethical Landscapes in
Puerto Rico: Resituating
the Ethics Bowl
William J. Frey
Center for Ethics in the Professions
University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez
Three questionable claims impede those who
teach ethics and do research on teaching ethics

Ethics cannot be taught at the university level


Studying the teaching of ethics is not research
but pedagogy


Our moral views and behavior are hard wired into us
by early adolescence
Teaching ethics does not raise issues that are
intellectually challenging and intellectually satisfying
Teaching ethics is not interdisciplinary

Only philosophers are qualified to teach ethics since it
is a branch of philosophy
The view that ethics can’t be taught has led
students in Puerto Rico to oppose ethics courses



In a recent article in the UPR magazine, Dialogo, students opposed
requiring ethics courses by stating that teaching ethics was
impossible
In class this semester, we considered three of these arguments:
 Religious dogma and moral values are not taught but assimilated
through one’s childhood environment
 Ethical views are set in early childhood and can’t be changed
 Ethical relativism is the (absolute) truth. Therefore, to attempt
to teach certain ethical values restricts our autonomy (our right
to hold whatever values we want to hold). Teaching ethics, on
this view, is nothing but indoctrination.
UPRM faculty rejected a code of ethics on the same
grounds

The student arguments may reflect widespread faculty doubts
about the feasibility of ethics and ethics instruction
A proposal to implement the Ethics
Bowl was turned down

Among the comments



“This is not research”
Assessing the results of the ethics bowl is not
research but merely evaluating the results of projects
already carried out
These comments have their presuppositions:


Research and Pedagogy are separate: one can teach
the results of one’s research, but teaching itself is not
the subject of systematic, ordered inquiry
Rigorous assessment is not an integral part of
research and teaching activity, but an afterthought
Nursing Ethics is no longer taught at UPRM
because of the third questionable claim

In a meeting between the nursing department
and some humanities faculty, a philosopher
argued that nurses couldn’t teach ethics
because…



“ethics is a normative discipline while nursing is
merely empirical”
“only philosophers trained in ethical theory can
understand and teach normative ethics”
On these grounds, humanities opposed the
nursing ethics course and nursing withdrew it
These comments and claims ignore
nearly 40 years of research


Psychologists (influenced by Piaget) have
carried out research projects into moral
development and moral pedagogy
Philosophers were initially opposed

This opposition was based on the claim that
the normative and the empirical were
separate
But recently philosophers have
begun to study moral psychology

Owen Flanigan: Minimal Psychological Realism
 “Make sure when constructing a moral theory
or projecting a moral ideal that the character,
decision processing, and behavior prescribed
are possible, or are perceived to be possible,
for creatures like us.”
 Hence moral philosophy needs to formulate
its normative content within the limits of the
humanly possible which is exposed through
the empirical studies of psychology
Considerable research has been
done on moral development

Kohlberg


Neo-Kohlbergians





Individuals progress through different stages of moral
development
Simplified Kohlberg’s stages
Tied to cognitive science
Empirical Studies charting adult moral development and
assessing the effectiveness of programs in moral instruction at
university level
Colby, Damon, Oliners have studied moral exemplars
(highly virtuous people)
Recently Haidt has identified two relatively independent
processes at play in moral judgment

Intuitive processing and conscious processing
Moral judgment is moderately
correlated with moral behavior

But according to Agusto Blasi, it is how
moral judgment is incorporated into selfconcept that is important



For most, moral behavior is a part of one’s
self-concept
But for some (e.g., moral exemplars) moral
behavior is central to self-concept, that is,
central to their sense of identify
This has brought virtue ethics into the
picture
Research into moral development has led to
a richer conception of moral education

Moral Judgment



Moral Sensitivity




Taught by discussing cases
Role-playing
Moral Imagination
Moral Motivation



Long considered the only teachable aspect of moral development
Approached by first teaching then applying theory
Looking at factors that motivate moral action
Content rich, real world cases also help to develop moral motivation
Moral Character


Can be developed by studying good news/little news cases
Moral Exemplars and Professional Communities
We also know what situations foster
moral development

Likona: We foster moral development
through situations that…





encourage seeing things from another’s point
of view
encourage reasoned argumentation and
comparison of alternatives
encourage taking responsibility
set forth moral controversy
foster participation in building and sustaining
professional and moral communities
Classroom discussion of cases
creates these situations



Cases can be constructed so that students take
up multiple perspectives
Ending the narrative abruptly before an action is
taken helps students to practice decision-making
Setting up small groups to discuss cases
broadens student participation, helps students
practice taking responsibility, and provides
insight and experience into community building
We have developed a taxonomy of ethics
cases to set forth teaching options

Historical vs. Hypothetical


Thick vs. Thin


Time Magazine Whistle Blowers vs. Ford Pinto
Big Cases vs. Small Cases


Challenger Case (see Pinkus et al) vs. email scenario
Good News vs. Bad News Cases


Ford Pinto vs. Mountain Terrorist Case
Exxon Valdez vs. Japanese Engineer
Evaluative Perspective Cases vs. Participant Perspective
Cases

Aquaculture Case Version 1 vs. Aquaculture Case Version 2
Cognitive Science research has
brought out the importance of
moral imagination

Johnson, Moral Imagination, 1993

Studies show how moral imagination filters
and structures the information presented by
complex situations
We frame situations
 We structure by schematizing
 We make sense of situations by imposing on them
certain narrative forms

Moral imagination works its way
down into conceptualization

Moral imagination accounts for the way we
formulate and understand intermediate moral
concepts like safety, privacy, property
These open-ended concepts cannot be defined by
listing necessary and sufficient conditions
 Rather we understand these concepts by moving
from non-problematic instances or prototypes
 Michael Pritchard in Reasonable Children shows
how children extend prototypes by analogy to
problematic cases

Problem solving in ethics also
involves moral imagination

Moral imagination also shows how we
integrate ethical considerations into decision
making at different levels
Ethical considerations do not merely evaluate
alternatives that we find ready-made in the
situation
 Rather they play the role of design specifications in
guiding the imagination toward constructing
solutions
 In other words, ethical considerations can
structure and channel the creative process of
generating solution alternatives to problems

The Ethics Bowl makes sense in
this richer view of moral education

Moral Reasoning



Decision-Making


Cases require that students propose and defend solutions to
open-ended cases and problems
Team Work



Team 1 presents a position, justifies it, and defends it
Team 2 makes a counter-proposal
Students prepare cases together in groups
The debate requires that team members reach quick
consensus
Role-Playing

During a debate one group asked another to act out their
solution
It began as a competition
developed through APPE




Designed by Robert Ladenson at Illinois
Institute of Technology
Presented in 1993 before the Association
for Practical and Professional Ethics
A nation-wide competition is held at the
annual meetings of APPE
This year 40 teams competed
The structure promotes student
debate on ethics cases







Two teams, two rounds, two cases
Team one is presented with a case, asked to
take a position, and justify that position
Team one gives an initial presentation of its
position
Judges ask team one questions
Team two makes a counter-proposal
Team one responds to this counter-proposal
The roles are reversed for the second half
Judges score each team according
to four criteria




Intelligibility—Has the team stated and defended its
position in a way that is logically consistent?
Depth—Does the team’s statement and defense of its
position indicate an awareness and understanding of the
issues ethically central to the case?
Focus—Does the team’s statement, and defense of, its
position avoid discussing issues that the judge considers
ethically irrelevant to the case? Does it respond to what
is ethically relevant?
Judgment—Has the team made a careful and
reasonable comparative assessment of the
considerations it identifies as ethically relevant in its
statement and defense?
This year the organizers revised
the judge’s scoring criteria

Clarity and Intelligibility


Focus on Ethically Relevant Factors


identified and discussed the ethically relevant factors in the case
Avoidance of Ethical Irrelevance


stated and defended its position in a logically consistent way
that makes clear the team’s line of reasoning
stayed on track by avoiding preoccupation with issues that are
ethically irrelevant or have only minor ethical relevance
Deliberative Thoughtfulness

the team has made a careful and reasonable comparative
assessment of the considerations identified as ethically relevant
in the statement and defense of its position
In Puerto Rico, we have sought to
contextualize the Ethics Bowl

Into the Engineering Curriculum


Modify the competition to cover basic issues
in engineering ethics
Into Puerto Rico


Prepare a Spanish Language version
Focus on issues that arise in engineering
practice in Puerto Rico
An important but difficult part of this
contextualization is case selection

Projects with the NSF in issue identification and case
development (NSF SBR-9810253)




We had workshops where BSE faculty and practitioners identified
key ethical issues
In other workshops BSE faculty and practitioners wrote and
refined cases based on these issues (50 cases posted at
www.uprm.edu/ethics )
We have used this issues list to write cases in other
projects (40 cases in engineering ethics in ABET
workshops)
We want to develop more cases that integrate technical
and ethical content
The following grid has helped us to select
cases for the Ethics Bowl
Topic/Source of Case
UPRM Ethics Cases
Confidentiality
NSPE BER Cases
Peer Review—
Confidentiality
Agreements 96-8
Conflict of Interest
Expert Witness Case
Inkjet Cartridge Case
Participation in Protest
Action as Part of a
Political Campaign 84-6
Objectivity of Engineer
Retained as Expert 85-4
Environmental Concerns
Inkjet Cartridge Case
Public Welfare—
Hazardous Waste 92-6
Product Liability
Pacemaker Case
Signing of Drawings by
Engineer in Industry 88-5
Safety and Health
Pacemaker Case
Public Welfare—
Hazardous Waste 92-6
These topics are more particularized to
Puerto Rico
Topic/Source of Case
UPRM Ethics Cases
NSPE BER Cases
Puerto Rican Women in
Engineering
Japanese Engineer Case
Engineers as Expert Witnesses
Expert Witness Case
Objectivity of Engineer
Retained as Expert, 85-4
Public Criticism by an Engineer
Japanese Engineer Case
Pacemaker Case
Participation in Protest Action
as Part of a Political Campaign
84-6
Questionable Practices in
Engineering in Puerto Rico
Inserting Change Orders Case
Expert Witness Case
Signing off on documents
prepared by others
Blueprints Case
Use of CADD System 90-6
Certification of Work Performed
by Technician 91-8
Performing within area of
competence
Blueprints Case
Use of CADD System 90-6
Certification of Work Performed
by Technician 91-8
We made special efforts to have
interdisciplinary judge teams

Seven Judges from Engineering College


Five Judges from Humanities


French Literature, Humanities/Music, Philosophy
Difficulty with pairing engineer and non-engineer


Industrial, Electrical, Mechanical
Competition coincided with ABET visit at UPRM
Judges brought different perspectives into the
competition

Students challenged to respond to different,
unanticipated questions
We changed the structure of the competition
to allow each team to compete twice



Ethics Bowl (National Level) is set up as an
NCAA Basketball tournament-type competition:
several rounds where winners advance and
losers drop out
Each team competes twice. Scores totaled.
Highest total score wins class competition.
Raised problem of uniformity in judge’s scoring.
Students were asked to assess the
Ethics Bowl last semester




He desarrollado mis destrezas en liderazgo y llegar a
acuerdos trabajando en equipo para el Ethics Bowl
No somos ingenieros solo para dar resultados calculados
(2 x 2 = 4) y ya! Hay impactos, primarios y secundarios;
pero todos afectan de una manera positiva, negativa,
colectiva y/o individual. Ayudo a considerar todos esos
puntos de vista.
Me ha ayudando grandemente a desarrollar mis
destrezas en comunicacion
I hated working in groups before this competition. And I
also used to do all the work by myself, but I like to work
in groups now.
We also formed some conclusions
based on observing the competition


Benefits resulted from bringing humanities and
engineering faculty together as judges.
Students learned from preparing cases



The competition promoted team work
Debating promotes moral imagination:


Prepared 14 case summaries and one in-depth analysis
identifying and framing problems, brainstorming solutions,
defining intermediate concepts through prototypes, designing
win-win solutions
The Ethics Bowl elicits broad student participation


Students divided labor and worked together as teams to prepare
for competition and during competition
Students uncomfortable with commenting in class were given
another, different opportunity to participate
The first stage brought forth some
challenges

Involving the rest of the class


Difficulty with 50 minute format



The students not participating in the debate were not
content with the role of passive observers
The competition requires an additional 15 minutes to
generate debate between teams and to provide
teams with feedback
Variation in judge scoring
The need to keep renewing the case repository
Sometimes the students got bad
advice from outside the classroom




NSPE BER Case: An engineer provides a safety
analysis report in support of the plaintiff in a
personal injury case
The engineer’s findings do not support the
plaintiff so he is paid and dismissed
The attorney for the defendant hires the
engineer to do a report for his client
Question: “Was it ethical for the engineer to
provide the second attorney with a separate
report?”
The students presented the case to an
engineer who misunderstood it





The engineer thought that the engineer had been
subpoenaed by the defense attorney to testify
Hence he told the students that it was a dilemma, a
forced choice between the law and ethics
Moreover, the law should win
When a judge (an experienced engineer expert witness)
took exception, the students remained fixed in their
belief in the authority of the engineer with whom they
consulted
The time demands of the competition did not allow us to
sort out the issue
The students had several ideas to
improve the process


Ethics Bowl veterans could be judges in future
competitions
Create a one credit hour course



Saturday seminar to learn how to judge and score a
competition
Saturday seminar to learn how to develop cases for
future competition
Challenge

Providing recognition for this effort (Socio-Humanistic
Credit? Certificate?)
To provide feedback, I developed
an Ethics Bowl rubric
Criteria
Degree of
Fulfillment
Explanation
of Criteria
Needs
Meets
improvement Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Intelli
gibility
Has the
team stated
and
defended its
position in a
way that is
logically
consistent?
1. Logical
consistency
needs
improvement
2. Response
could be
more clear
and precise
3. Presentation parts
were not
completely
explained or
justified
1. Special and
1. Logical
consistency
maintained
2. Response
was clear and
precise
3. Presentations were
readily
understandable
successful efforts
were made to
show logical
consistency and
to expose
inconsistencies
2. Response was
unusually clear
and precise
3. Presentation
advanced the
understanding of
judges and
participants
Score
Comments
This part of the rubric focuses on
integration of ethics content
Criteria /
Degree of
Fulfillment
Explanation
of Criteria
Needs
Improvement
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Depth
To what extent
does the
team’s
statement and
defense of its
position
indicate an
awareness and
understanding
of the issues
that the judge
views as
ethically
central to the
case?
1. The ethics
and code tests
were not fully
applied
2. The ethics
tests were
incorrectly
applied
3. The ethics
tests were
confused with
one another
4. The ethics
tests were not
fully integrated
into the
responses
1. The ethics
tests were used
to justify and
evaluate
responses
2. The ethics
were correctly
employed
3. The ethics
tests were not
confused with
one another
4. The ethics
tests were
integrated into
the responses.
1. The ethics tests
justified and
evaluated the
responses in an
exemplary way.
2. The ethics tests
illuminated the
analysis
3. The ethics tests
were clearly and
explicitly
distinguished
4. The ethics were
constitutive of the
responses
Score /
Comments
This part considers how well the
students focused their comments
Criteria /
Degree of
Fulfillment
Explanation
of Criteria
Needs
Improvement
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Focus
To what extent
does the
team’s
statement and
defense of its
position avoid
discussing
issues that the
judge
considers
ethically
irrelevant to
the case?
1. Little
relevance to the
case at hand
2. Brought in
matters that
were not
relevant to the
central ethical
issues
3. Failed to
bring out issues
that were
relevant to the
central ethical
issue
4. Not well
organized and
focused
1. Relevant to
the ethical
considerations
raised in the
case
2. Did not inject
irrelevant
matters into the
discussion
3. Touched on
all the centrally
ethical issues
4. Well
organized and
focused
1. Highly
relevant
2. Raised and
illuminated all
the centrally
ethical issues
3. Extremely
well
organized
and sharply
focused
Score /
Comments
The rubric on judgment provides an overall
assessment of team’s performance
Criteria /
Degree of
Fulfillment
Explanation
of Criteria
Needs
Improvement
Meets
Expectations
Exceeds
Expectations
Judgment
To what extent
has the team
made a careful
and
reasonable
comparative
assessment of
the
considerations
it identifies as
ethically
relevant in its
statement and
defense of its
position?
1. Has not taken a
position
2. Offers a
minimal
justification and
defense of its
position
3. Does not raise
central ethical
issues in stating
its position
4. Does not
compare its
position with
others
5. Makes a
careless or
unreasonable
comparative
assessment
1. Took a clear
position
2. Offered a
reasonable and
careful defense
of its position
3. Raised the
central ethical
issues in stating
its position
4. Comparatively
assessed its
position
5. Made a careful
and reasonable
comparative
assessment
1. Took a clearly
enlightened position
2. Carefully,
reasonably, and
insightfully defended
its position
3. Raised and
illuminated the
central ethical issues
of its position
4. Comparative
assessment of
position was clearly
exemplary in its
explanation of
alternatives and
demonstration of its
superiority
Score /
Comments
Implementing the Ethics Bowl beyond
the classroom also has its challenges




Effort to involve individuals from private
industry
Funding for more ambitious efforts
Working with crowded faculty schedules
Generating maximum feedback for
students on debate and other activities
We are considering several
possibilities for future expansion

Competitions between classes







Bioethics students have challenged the engineering ethics
students to a debate
Competition within the College of Engineering
University-wide competition
Island-wide competition (Caribbean Ethics Bowl?)
Bring the Ethics Bowl to PR high school students
(preliminary discussion with high school teachers)
Developing a team for competition at the National Ethics
Bowl (APPE)
Strong interest from the Puerto Rican Foundation for the
Humanities (service component)
Overall, the Ethics Bowl was a
dramatic success




It responds well to the findings of moral
development theory and moral psychology
The students were enthusiastic about the
process
Faculty have found it important enough to
take the time to serve as judges
Administration is gradually recognizing and
supporting the competition
Thank You







Questions?
Comments?
Suggestions?
Similar Experiences?
If you try something like this, let me know about
the results
William J. Frey
W_Frey@rumac.uprm.edu