On Saturday, January 25th, the Hopkins Ethics Bowl team competed at the Connecticut championships. This year, there were a record number of teams competing, with a total of 18 participating teams. Our B team, with members Nathan Fekadu, Riya Rao, Claire Billings, Kyle Song, Samantha Aguero, and Evan Galvani-Townsend, had an amazing showing with a win accompanied by some very close rounds. Our A team, made up of Logan Matthews, Sarah Galvani-Townsend, Vidwan Aryan, Henry Foushee, and Ripley Chance, got first in the state for the first time in Hopkins’s history! On February 15th, they will be competing against the winners of Rhode Island, the winner of which will attend Nationals in April at UNC Chapel-Hill.
Read below for the questions we discussed, and if you’re interested in the topics we ponder, read the
full case set!
Every year, students are also able to submit cases to be included in the case set, so we are currently in the process of writing our own ethical dilemmas. Join the classroom if you’re interested with the code nvlf5e.
Round 1:
Hopkins A (W) (147 pts) vs. Cheshire (141 pts.)
Hopkins discussed Case #5, with the question “What obligations, if any, do artists have to their sources of inspiration?”
Cheshire discussed Case #2, with the question “What sort of restrictions, if any, does being in a romantic relationship place on one’s other relationships?”
Round 2:
Hopkins A (W) (156) vs. Trumbull B (144)
Hopkins discussed Case #11, with the question “Is there a morally significant difference between boycotting a company for its CEO’s values versus the values of the company itself?”
Trumbull 2 discussed Case #3, with the question “Is it hypocritical to feed your pet meat products if you are Vegan?”
Hopkins B (W) (147) vs. New Canaan (138)
Round 3:
Hopkins A (W) (152) vs. Trumbull A (148)
Hopkins discussed Case #12, with the question “How should sporting organizations decide which countries to host large scale events?”
Trumbull 1 discussed Case #4, with the question “What obligations are there to voice your disagreement when hearing something you perceive as morally wrong?
Hopkins B (150) vs. Fairfield 1 (W) (154)
Round 4:
Hopkins A (W) (157) vs. Hotchkiss A (151)
Hopkins discussed Case #15, with the question “Is there a morally significant difference between adjusting insurance rates based on reckless driving versus adjusting them for accidents?”
Hotchkiss discussed Case #9, with the question “When, if ever, is it okay for parents to force their kids to do something that is against their wishes?”
Round 5: Bye
Hopkins B (125) vs. Torrington A (W) (156)
Round 6: Bye
Hopkins B (146) vs. Masuk B (W) (153)
Finals:
Hopkins 2 (W!!!!!) vs. Fairfield Prep 1
Hopkins discussed Case #14, with the question “Is there anything intrinsically wrong with forming deep social/romantic bonds with AI?”
Fairfield discussed Case #10, with the question “To what extent should someone’s meaning in life be connected with their job? Why or why not?”