



















































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

52 
 

Book Review  
 

The Ethics Bowl Way: Answering Questions, Questioning Answers, and 
Creating Ethical Communities 
 
Edited: Robert Israeloff and Karen Mizell 
Date:   2022 
Publisher:  Rowman & Littlefield 
Price: $ 20.00 paper; $ 28.50 Kindle; $ 58.49 Hardcover 
 
 

Review by Richard Morehouse 
 
 
 

 
  
his edited volume is chocked full of insights that increase as each chapter leads the reader 
to a richer understanding of what an ethics bowl is, how it works, and what has been 

learned and applied to thinking and learning skills as well as what organizers of critical thinking 
programs can learn from the Ethics Bowl program. This book has three sections: Part I: Ethics Bowl 
Basics, Part II: The Best Practices, and Part II: Expanding the Research of Ethics Bowl. 
 

As I started reading this compact book of a mere 141 pages, I thought The Ethic Bowl was 
about a thing, but to my great pleasure, it is about ways of teaching and learning and a way of 
thinking. Beginning in the first chapter, I had already radically changed my mind. With that mind 
shift, the review begins in the middle of the book in Part II. Way. A hint as to why this unusual 
starting point is found in the title – The ethics bowl way: Answering questions, questioning answers, and 
creating ethical communities. I draw your attention to the word “way.” Reading The Ethics Bowl Way, 
my thoughts were directed toward The Buddha’s middle way and Aristotle’s phronesis. The Buddha 
thought was between extreme asceticism on one hand and sensual indulgence, while Aristotle taught 
about phronesis. Phronesis implies both good judgment and excellence of character. The Buddha's 
and Aristotle’s teachings were about a way of being and doing. The ethics bowl way is about 
disposition and methods. 
 

Before exploring the book as it unfolds, allow me to begin with Chapter Eight, ‘Beyond 
argument: Learning life skills through Ethics Bowl.’ Early in this chapter Andrew Collision, the 
Director of the Cincinnati Ethic Center at The University of Cincinnati, presents some of the skill 
sets that are in harmony with other communities of inquiry.  

 

T 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

53 
 

• Ethical awareness – the process of identifying an issue is itself an ethical issue. 
• Ethical reasons – the ability to identify all the different positions that reasonable people may take 

with respect to an ethical issue and identify all the reasons and arguments they might have for that 
decision. 

• Ethical decision-making – the ability to weigh those reasons in a thoughtful manner to decide what 
to think about or do about an ethical issue. 

• Ethical Dialogue – the ability to engage in thoughtful, deliberative conversations with other people 
about an ethical issue [particularly people with different backgrounds and perspectives] (p. 66). 
 

These skill sets are not only life skills but, with reference to the book’s title, indicate a “way,” that is, 
a disposition and a method in which the Ethics Bowl program may be understood. In conversation, 
within each student team and within the competitive arena of an Ethics Bowl, ethical awareness, 
ethical reasoning, and ethical decision-making occur while engaged in ethical dialogue. The ethics 
bowl way appears to be about both attribution and method.  
 
Part I: The Ethics Bowl Basics 

 
There are three chapters in Part I; Chapter one: The idea of an ethical community, building 

democracy; Chapter two: Debating Democracy: Building argument programs for good citizenship; 
Chapter three: Optional but suggested: The role of ethics theory and research in Ethicd Bowl 
preparation. 

 
This brings us back to a brief chapter-by-chapter look at The Ethics Bowl Way (EBW). The goal 

of the ethics bowl program, operating within a complex community with differing political views 
and mindsets, is to teach students how to think through ethical issues together (pp. 3-4). As presented 
in this chapter, there are three main elements to the ethics bowl way: (1) format, (2) procedures and 
(3) rules. The three elements of The Ethics Bowl Way may begin with a community conversation 
about ethics constructed around the four principles presented in the paragraph above [format]. The 
conversations happen in small teams facilitated by a coach. This team practice is identified. Defining 
and articulating the multiple meaning of an ethics issue [procedure]. Eventually, this preparation 
stage ends in local, regional and potentially national competitions, which are scored by judges [rules]. 
 

Debating Democracy is a somewhat misleading title. Citing W.V.O. Quine, Kyle Roberson, a 
lecturer in Philosophy at UC Santa Cruz, cautions that debate teaches compelling thought and 
persuasion at the expense of the pursuit of truth. Robertson’s point is that Ethics Bowl Way is a 
better approach to debate as a method for teaching persuasion and critical thinking. Debate is 
undemocratic in Roberson’s view if persuasion is valued over thinking together to resolve the ethical 
issue. In the ethics bowl format, all debate forms “inculcate norms of argumentation that influence 
our everyday notions of what a good democratic deliberation looks like” (p. 12). Specifically, a 
dialogical debate is collaborative, 2) it is truth-seeking, and 3) it encourages open-mindedness (p. 14). 
 

“Optional but suggested: The role of ethical theory and research in Ethics Bowl preparation,” 
the title of Chapter three, is emblematic of the open-ended form, procedures, and rules of EBW. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

54 
 

Richard Greene, assistant professor at Weber State University, makes two points in this chapter. 
First, while it may be helpful for coaches and judges to have some knowledge of theories of justice, 
that knowledge is not required. If theories of justice are used poorly, they may detract from the 
struggle of coaches and students to orient the presentations toward an argument about ethics theory 
rather than sorting through and supporting or criticizing ethical choices. Using or ignoring ethical 
theory in preparation for the Ethics Bowl is closely connected to the research in preparation for the 
Bowl. The answer to the question of whether there should be extensive research before debates, on 
the surface, seems intuitive. However, as the reviewer is beginning to learn, the point of EBW is to 
engage students and coaches in “homegrown” thinking about what is ethical and how to evaluate 
and make a case for good ethical choices. It is thinking for oneself with peers that are the hallmark 
of EBW; thus, knowing ethical theory and doing extensive research may or may not help reach the 
goal of the EBW, that is, teaching students how to think through ethical issues together. 
 
Part II: Best Practices 

 
Jeanie DeLay’s “Values of ethics bowl design” opens the book's second part. “Using the values 

at play design framework, we focus on describing for ethics bowl, game elements, and their company, 
values, (1) venue and equipment, (2) narratives, (3) reward, structure, and  
(4) goals” (p. 30). There is open access to participation in the Ethics Bowl competition, and the only 
equipment required is a pen and paper. Case study narratives are readable and accessible. The reward 
structure is both intrinsic and extrinsic, that is, one gains self-gratification by learning to speak better, 
listen more carefully, and think more clearly within a supportive group structure, and there is a 
public award at the end of the competition with an award in several categories. 
 

“Coaching: Winning isn’t everything” begins by explaining that the main task of an Ethics 
Bowl coach is to teach within an atmosphere that encourages teamwork while imparting knowledge 
and encouraging independent critical thinking. In the process, students also gain confidence in 
researching, speaking, and writing. Marcia A. McKelligan, a professor of philosophy at DePauw 
University, has coached Ethics Bowls at the college level for over twenty years. She states that the 
tasks of a coach are to recruit a team and prepare a team for competition. As a part of the 
preparation, she writes, is a syllabus that someone else prepares, “the case study drives the course 
content, and their cases are primary texts. Research provides secondary source material” (p. 52). Case 
analysis is one of the pivotal elements of preparing students and takes time to acquire, but close 
reading and clear, careful thinking are essential (p. 52). McKelligan describes the event, the bowl, 
and the celebration and debriefing after the bowl. The last section of the chapter addresses the 
subtitle of this chapter “Winning isn’t everything.” 
 

Regular readers of Analytic Teaching and Philosophical Praxis will recognize the person writing 
Chapter Seven, Wendy C Turgeon. Dr. Turgeon teaches at Saint Joseph’s College in New York, 
where she is a philosophy professor and the department chair. Dr. Turgeon’s chapter points out that 
the Ethics Bowls began in colleges and have moved to high school and recently to middle schools. 
Her introductory paragraph points to the hours of work required by students, coaches, and judges. 
The workload’ for participants has become evident to me, but this reader welcomes a specific 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

55 
 

recognition of what is required to field such an enterprise. The work of the judges is presented in 
her chapter, beginning with a section entitled “Who can be a judge?” The qualifications are not 
based on position or credentials but instead on skills and disposition: 
 

• an interest in preparing for the presentations and in ethical reflection, 
• a willingness to be objective, fair, supportive, 
• an ability to listen carefully to arguments presented,   
• the skill of formulating helpful questions (p. 58). 

 
Each of these skills and dispositions is addressed, followed by a primer on ethical theory, a 
presentation on what the day of judging is like, the nature of scoring the teams, and the purpose, 
role, and value of feedback. The final section addresses the rewards of judging. 
 

“I think that Ethics Bowl is one of the best educational experiences a student can undergo,” 
(p. 66) states the author of Chapter seven, “Beyond argument: Learning life skills through Ethics 
Bowl.” Andrew Cullison is now founding executive director of the Cincinnati Ethics Center at the 
University of Cincinnati, a former student at DePauw University, and a former participant in the 
Ethics Bowl, at DePauw University in 1999. He compares EBW metaphorically to CrossFit, which 
simultaneously tones the mighty mind and soul together. Collison’s focus is on ethical reasoning 
skills which he lists and defines. These skills are more or less sequentially developed. The first is 
ethical awareness, followed by ethical reasoning. Then comes ethical decision-making, which ends 
in ethical dialogue. Ethical awareness is the ability to identify an ethical issue. Ethical reasoning 
identifies all the different positions that reasonable people might take. Ethical decision-making 
weighs those reasons in a thoughtful manner. Ethical dialogue engages one in a community of people 
of different backgrounds and thoughtful, deliberative conversations. He continues by discussing the 
life skills involved in public speaking and how the Ethics Bowl Way encourages one to approach 
dialogue in a non-competitive manner. This move is a step toward gaining self-confidence and 
becoming resilient. These cognitive, emotional, and communal efforts result in the encouragement 
of ethical leadership. 
 

Chapter 9: “Room for all: Inclusivity and the high school Ethic Bowl” written by Jana Mohr 
Lone, director of PLATO (Philosophical Learning and Teaching Organization and an affiliate 
professor of philosophy at the University of Washington). Some readers of AT & PP might recognize 
her for her contributions to this journal and her work with the Washington Center for philosophy 
for children.  
 

From best practices to innovation is a good way to characterize this chapter. Best practices 
include high school students involved with assessing and evaluating the program, teacher/coach 
suggestions for improvement, adjusting to covid-19 pandemic, and modification of team 
membership numbers, all in the service of increasing student and school involvement and the 
number of multiracial teams. The format, procedure, and rules approach discussed in Chapter one 
is flexible, as the “Open Dialogue” section of Dr. Lone’s chapter indicated. Her team added an open 
dialogue element to the final round of the Bowl by adding an open dialogue element. In 2019, Dr. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

56 
 

Lone writes that we instituted an open dialogue section in each round. After the presentation, 
commentary, and response and before the judges' questions, “the team had five minutes for a self-
moderated open dialogue” (p. 77). Dr. Lone’s “open dialogue” innovation expands the EDW within 
the overarching orientation of format, procedure, and rules.  
 

Part II might have been called “How the rewards for all of those involved in EBW are 
manifested.” The students, coaches, and judges are intrinsically rewarded for making an Ethic Bowl 
successful and contributing to participatory democracy. 
 
Part III: Expanding the reach of Ethics Bowl 

 
In Chapter Ten: “The Turn to Reason: Ethics bowl in the Classroom” is informed by the 

setting of the staff and the students in EBW. Stanford Online High school is a private independent 
school located at Stanford University for academically talented students worldwide. The three 
authors who teach philosophy at Stanford Online High School, William M. Beals, Christina 
Drogalis, and Morgan E. Wallhagen, are all Ph.Ds. in Philosophy. The authors write, “Our school 
is unusual in a few ways: we are an online institution with an international student body and require 
that full-time students take a sequence of year-long philosophy courses called core classes” (p. 83). 
The connections between the views of the authors and their perspectives on this class are stated by 
the authors as important for two reasons, (1) their students in the Ethic Bowl program have been 
taking philosophy classes for a number of years, and (2) they have found that their students apply 
what they are learning in Ethics Bowl support to the general curriculum of Stanford Online High 
School and vice-versa. The authors divide their comments into three sections: (1) the turn to reason, 
(2) how what we teach in class supports Ethics Bowl, and (3) what we practice in Ethics Bowl impacts 
students in class. In an attempt to summarize the three sections of their chapter, it appears to this 
reviewer that a key may be the attention paid not only to thinking clearly for oneself but also listening 
and hearing another’s point of view within the context of the “others” clear alternative thoughts. 
For example, the habits of critical reading learned in the students’ philosophy classes help students 
listen and criticize more fluently and attentively, and listening to presentations during Ethic Bowl 
sessions Improves students’ critical and careful reading. 

 
Chapter 11: “Deliberating Across the Lifespan” is by Michael Vazquez. Dr. Vazquez is an 

Assistant Professor and Director of Outreach in the Department of Philosophy and the Parr Center 
of Ethics at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill; he writes about “flipping the script.” The 
same attitude that the Twentieth Century pioneers of Philosophy for Children movement led to 
dismantle educational prejudice toward children should animate our efforts to collaborate with folks 
beyond the schooling years (p. 91). Education might be a beginning place for implementing the 
EBW approach into adult venues, Vazquez Senior Ethics Bowl with local communities, Ethics Bowls 
for education professionals, Ethic Bowl in the workplace and for public servants. He also argues that 
intergeneration Ethics Bowls offer unique opportunities for modeling lifelong learning.  
 

Chapter 12: “Ethics Bowl at San Quentin” is an example of the reach of the Ethics Board Way. 
The Ethics Bowl program is sponsored by mount Tamalpais College, a recently formed college whose 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

57 
 

only campus is inside San Quentin State Prison. A debate program had been started by Kathy 
Richard at the request of the students for extracurricular activities to develop their critical thinking 
skills (p. 102). After introducing the program authors, Connie Krosney and Kathy J. Richards discuss 
one of the unexpected strengths of the Ethics Bowl program at San Quentin. The authors make a 
case for the value of a lack of internet and library resources. Perhaps this absence of voluminous 
resources pushed San Quentin's team members toward deeper reflection, encouraging them to use 
their own minds and those of their peers as resources (p. 103). 

 
Dr. Alex M. Richardson’s chapter invites the reader to explore what is on the horizon for the 

Ethics Bowl Way. Chapter 13: “Meeting the Challenges: The Future of Ethics Bowl,” creates a space 
for students and others at a time when the bonds of social and civic community are strained. A 
pandemic, the social and cultural questions of race, identity, and belonging and a coercive political 
climate have highlighted the need for critical and creative thinking around the ethical issues raised 
in our current milieu. The growth of the EBW has moved up and down the age ladder: moving 
down to middle school and potentially to elementary school and up past adulthood to include the 
elderly population. It now serves around four thousand students with a program in at least six 
countries. This growth has also been toward being more inclusive.  

 
“From Ethics Bowler to coach: Lifelong learning through Ethic Bowl” is the next chapter. 

Racheal Robertson-Green, now an assistant professor of Philosophy at Utah State University, shows 
how coaching Ethics Bowl was part of her lifelong learning. Her introduction to Ethics Bowl is 
perhaps emblematic of the diversity of the participants in an Ethics Bowl, which is best said in her 
own words,  

 
In the fall of 2002, I sat around a table with four friends, talking about Dance Safe – a 
program that provided free drug testing at raves. The program was designed to prevent people 
from seriously hurting themselves or dying by taking drugs cut with harmful chemicals. Yet 
perhaps because the five of us were on an ethics bowl team, we were tasked to decide whether 
the Dance Safe mission was ethically feasible (p. 119). 
 

This encounter with a diverse group of students led to her reading philosophers who theorized about 
ethics within social contexts. Rachael Greene now coaches an Ethics Bowl team. She illustrates the 
intersection of Ethics Bowl and ethical issues that were part of her lived-experience as manifested in 
regional and national social and political events. Those experiences led her to instruct her students 
that they should recognize the Ethics Bowl as a call for further reflection and that Ethic Bowl could 
help them sharpen their skills in checking out beliefs for coherence. The Ethics Bowl experiences 
ignited and maintained her commitment to lifelong learning.  
 

This book ends with an appendix, a sample of high school Ethics Bowl cases and study 
questions, notes, references and sources, and a short biography of the editors and contributors. 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 1 (2023) 

  
 
 

58 
 

Lifelong learning is one of the undercurrent themes of this book; whether intentionally or 
coincidentally, all the authors appear to commit to passing on their core belief in lifelong learning 
and are working to pass that love for learning to all engaged in Ethics Bowl.  
 
Address Correspondences to:  
Dr. Richard Morehouse, 
Emeritus Professor, Viterbo University 
email: remorehouse@viterbo.edu 
 


