CASE Library
Explore The Issues that Matter.
We excitedly invite you to browse, search, and explore our newly redesigned library of over 300 case studies which render some of the most complex and controversial moral and political issues of our time. These cases were formerly used for official NHSEB competitions at the Regional, Divisional, and National Championship levels. They are freely available for public use under Creative Commons licenses.
The NHSEB Case Library is an excellent tool for competitive preparation, internal or intramural competition, or beyond the context of the Ethics Bowl activity completely—as a classroom resource for Grades 9-12 and beyond.
Featured Cases
NAVIGATING THE LIBRARY
NHSEB’s Case Library is now fully browsable by individual case, or by Case Set—using the filters below. Or, if you already know a bit about what you’re looking for, the entire library of over 300 Ethics Bowl cases is newly indexed, referenced, and searchable by title, topic, keyword, year, and category. Each individual case entry contains the full text of the case and discussion questions as they originally appeared for competitive use, all references assembled in hyperlinked footnotes, and additional contextual resources curated by NHSEB HQ.
CASE SET COLLECTION
FIND AN ETHICS BOWL CASE
ATTRIBUTION AND CITATION
All National High School Ethics Bowl cases are the intellectual property of the Parr Center for Ethics, and all are freely available for public use under Creative Commons licenses once retired from use in NHSEB competitions. This library represents thousands of hours of work from our Contributing Authors, Editors, and others. Please do not reproduce NHSEB cases or sets—in part or in whole—without attribution, or modify the text of individual cases or sets. If you reproduce or make reference to NHSEB cases from this library (e.g., in classroom materials, academic papers, etc.), please attribute and/or cite those materials:
National High School Ethics Bowl (Ed.), <YEAR>. “<Case Title>.” National High School Ethics Bowl Case Library. UNC Parr Center for Ethics: Chapel Hill, NC. http://nhseb.org/case-library
Browse The Library
No Fly Lists
The US FBI has maintained a No Fly List since shortly after 9/11. As of 2016, there were approximately 81,000 people on the list, though only 1,000 of those were US persons. Some argue that the list is an unjustified violation of civil liberties, since a person need not be convicted of a crime to be added to the list. The list also can lead to false positives. However, the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center argues that it is an important counterterrorism measure.
Support for Paris
In the aftermath of the 2015 Paris terrorist attack, many around the world expressed strong support for Paris. On the same day as the Paris attacks, there were suicide bombings in Beirut and Baghdad that received relatively little global attention. Is it unreasonable for Americans to express support for Paris but not for Beirut or Baghdad?
See Something, Say Something
At the airport, Susan (who fears Muslim extremists) notices a man in a turban acting suspiciously. Should she ignore him given her own biases and the fact that she may not have noticed him if he had been dressed differently, or should she err on the side of caution and say something? Is racial, ethnic, or religious profiling ever morally permissible?
Cultural Artifacts
ISIS is destroying history and profiting by attacking cultural heritage sites and looting antiquities. Is the US coalition doing enough to protect the country's cultural artifacts from ISIS? Are we morally required to preserve cultural artifacts? Are we morally permitted to purchase stolen cultural artifacts?
Paying a Ransom to Save Your Family
The US has a strict policy of not paying ransoms for hostages because it incentivizes the taking of hostages and funds terrorism. Is it morally justifiable the government to enforce this policy on private citizens who try to pay ransoms? Is it immoral for families to pay ransoms?
Unmanned Drone Attacks
After the Obama Administration was criticized for use of unmanned drone strikes that killed 3 US citizens in Yemen, they argued that when a high-level official decides a citizen poses an imminent threat of violence, the US may legally kill the citizen without any trial. Opponents argue this violates the right to due process.
Red Cross and the Taliban
The Red Cross was criticized for providing medical aid to Taliban fighters, but responded by stressing the importance of their neutrality. Should the Red Cross be allowed to provide first aid training to armed insurgents? Is neutrality in conflicts always a morally permissible option?