June 2026 Newsletter: Prediction Markets, Philosophy Camps, and a China Trip
Are prediction markets like Kalshi ethically permissible? They reward people for being right about the future, which is exactly the kind of clear-eyed foresight a good society needs. They also reward people for being right about tragedy, which is exactly the kind of detachment a good person should resist.
Much of the online discourse, including a recent Last Week Tonight segment, jumps straight to the harms, racing past the genuine benefits in a way that never reaches the real ethical tension. So how do you help your students see both sides of a complex case like this, and prepare for an Olympiad, Invitational, or Ethics Bowl? One method I've been trialling recently is the Grid System.
The best way to begin prep is to take the simplest, most general version of the question. So don't start with the narrow questions about insider trading or specific scandals. Start here:
Case 3: Betting on the Future. "Are prediction markets like Kalshi ethically permissible?"
Now students fill in every cell with arguments, Pro and Con, across each ethical theory:
Pro
Utilitarianism: Financial incentives surface real information. When informed people bet, prices become accurate forecasts that help governments, businesses, and individuals prepare for the future. This produces real social good.
Deontology: Adults have a right to use their own knowledge and money as they choose. Placing a bet on your own honest assessment of the future violates no one's rights and breaches no duty.
Virtue Ethics: Prudence and foresight are virtues. The person who reads the world accurately and stakes something on that judgment is exercising exactly the kind of practical wisdom we should admire.
Rawls: Behind the veil of ignorance, you would want accurate forecasting systems to exist. They reduce uncertainty and help everyone, including the vulnerable, prepare. You would accept a world with prediction markets.
Con
Utilitarianism: These are gambling platforms. Like all gambling, they are addictive and prey on the vulnerable, causing real financial and psychological harm. And the gains flow to wealthy, well-connected traders while ordinary participants lose. Net utility is likely negative.
Deontology: Some things should not be bought and sold. Putting a price on whether people die in a disaster treats human life and suffering as mere objects of trade, violating their dignity. Worse, markets on harmful events create perverse incentives to cause the very outcomes being bet on.
Virtue Ethics: Habitually betting on real-world events, especially tragic ones, corrodes character. It cultivates a disposition to see catastrophe as opportunity and detaches the bettor from the suffering of others.
Rawls: The least advantaged, those with no information, capital, or access, cannot participate on fair terms. A system that structurally favours the already powerful cannot be justified to everyone affected by it.
Once the grid is filled in, pick your row (Pro or Con): that gives you your thesis. Pick your theory column: that gives you your theory section. Your arguments come from the single cell at the intersection of your row and your column. Your counter-argument can come from anywhere on the opposite row. Your discharge comes from the cell directly opposite the CA you chose, and/or back to your own argument cell.
Here is what the speech looks like for a student who chose Con, Virtue Ethics:
Thanks (opening): Thank you so much, Judge and Team B, for joining us for this really interesting ethical discussion. We're excited to get into it.
Thesis (your row: Con): The question is whether prediction markets like Kalshi are ethically permissible. We argue that they are not.
Theory (column header): We take a virtue ethics approach. This asks not just what is legal or what maximises welfare, but what kind of person an action makes you, and what dispositions a practice cultivates.
Arguments (Con × Virtue): Habitually betting on real-world events, especially tragic ones, corrodes character. It cultivates a disposition to see catastrophe as opportunity and detaches the bettor from the suffering of others. A person of good character does not train themselves to profit from the worst moments in other people's lives.
Counter-argument (Pro, any column): The strongest objection is utilitarian: financial incentives surface real information, and accurate forecasts help governments and individuals prepare for the future. The bettor is not causing the event; they are pricing it. The social benefit is real.
Discharge (Con Util, then back to Con Virtue): But the utilitarian benefits are overstated. These are gambling platforms: addictive, harmful to the vulnerable, and dominated by wealthy traders while ordinary participants lose. And even if the forecasting benefit were real, a virtuous person can recognise that some beneficial-looking activities are still ones they should not build their character around.
Conclusion (closing): We have argued that prediction markets like Kalshi are not ethically permissible. Even where legal and even where useful, the practice corrodes the character of those who engage in it and detaches them from the suffering of others. Thank you.
This is Case 3 from the TKEthics Fall 2026 set. The full case set is available at modusponensinstitute.com/case-sets. The Fall Invitational is November 7, and the same case set will be used for the Novice Tournament on August 29.
Online Philosophy Camps (August 2026)
Zach Bloom and I are teaching three intensive online philosophy camps this August. I'm teaching the Introduction to Philosophy track. Zach, my co-founder at MPI, holds an MA with a focus in logic and philosophy of mathematics and is leading both the Epistemology and Formal Logic tracks.
We're keeping class sizes deliberately small. Limited places available. If any of these look right for you or your student, please sign up now.
Intro to Philosophy
Taught by Archie · Aug 9-12 · Ages 12-16
Day 1 — Ethics: the trolley problem, how arguments work, the three main moral theories
Day 2 — Knowledge: skepticism, justified true belief, the Gettier problem
Day 3 — The self: the Ship of Theseus, memory, the Buddhist no-self view
Day 4 — Does God exist? The main arguments and the problem of evil
Epistemology
Taught by Zach · Aug 16-19 · Ages 14-18
Day 1 — Knowledge and skepticism: belief, truth, justified true belief, the skeptical challenge
Day 2 — The Gettier problem and modern theories of justification
Day 3 — Testimony, trust, and disagreement: who to believe and why
Day 4 — The ethics of belief: evidence, stakes, and intellectual responsibility
Deductive Logic
Taught by Zach · Aug 23-26 · Ages 14-18
Day 1 — Arguments, validity, and the basic symbolic tools
Day 2 — Conditionals: if, only if, and necessary and sufficient conditions
Day 3 — Truth tables as a test of every possible case
Day 4 — Testing arguments for validity, plus named forms and common fallacies
$480 CAD per camp · Four 3-hour live Zoom sessions · Accredible certificate · Need-based scholarships available
New This Season: TKEthics Novice Invitational
We're running a Novice Invitational on August 28, 2026 for newcomers only. Same Ethics-Olympiad format, same trained philosopher judges, but a field made up entirely of first-time competitors, so it's the ideal place to start.
It's online and open worldwide. If you have students who are curious about competing but not sure where to begin, this is the entry point.
Register: tkethics.org
Coaching Public Forum in China (Shanghai, July 14 to August 5)
Zach and I are both in Shanghai from July 14 through August 5. We're both coaching Public Forum debate, including for NHSDLC Nationals, and we're also running a philosophy prep program and an AI and ethics camp.
If you're nearby and want to get involved in any of those, or just want to meet up for a conversation about philosophy, debate, or anything else, reach out. We'd love to hear from you.
Get in touch: astapleton@modusponensinstitute.com
That's it for June. Feel free to forward this to anyone who might find the camps or the Shanghai coaching useful.
Best, Archie Co-founder, Modus Ponens Institute
Comments