An article in this week's Chronicle, takes a look at Collegiate Ethic Bowls. The primary example in the article centers on a case of a small town librarian who has just helped a patron find information about cyanide and local water supplies. What is her responsibility to protect her community (contact authorities?) vs. the rights of the patron (privacy? what is his intended use of the information?)?
I know what I'd do, and I know why.
The interesting thing about the article, though, is that these Ethics Bowls are supposed to build the moral character of the student's involved, by making them think through tough decisions. The problem is, like debate contests, is that winning the Bowl isn't about picking the best solution, but providing the best support for that position, sometimes two very different things. As one of the contestants admits, "I don't believe half the stuff I say." It seems this is all an exercise in creating bureaucrats, not ethiticians.
| Categorized in: