The deadline for this year's applications is Friday, March 6, 2026.
To be considered for selection as an Ethics Scholar, please submit the online application and the required documentation listed below:
Winners will be honored and formally announced at the Ethics Scholarship Banquet at Weber State University. Scholarship winners and their parents will be informed before the banquet, and are strongly encouraged to attend.
First, gather the following information. If these items are not attached to your application, you may not be eligible for a scholarship.
- High school transcript including current GPA and ACT scores (unofficial copy, such as a scanned PDF is acceptable).
- Verification of high school graduation date by high school administrator, if you are a high school senior applying (e.g., brief letter from guidance counselor).
- Letter of Recommendation (this can be from a faculty member, community member, school administrator, etc.)
- Short bio about yourself (50-100 words). Be sure to include leadership and community service activities, school activities (sports, clubs, music, theatre), personal hobbies and interests, and what major(s) you are interested in.
- Professional-looking headshot
- A 500-word ethics essay, double spaced, titled and dated including your name and that of your high school. Please write on ONE of the following topics. To be eligible, you must include the following statement at the end of your essay: “I certify that I did not use Chat GPT or any artificial intelligence programs in the production of my essay.”
Essay Topics
To be eligible, you must include the following statement at the end of your essay: “I certify that I did not use Chat GPT or any artificial intelligence programs in the production of my essay.”
1. Fluoride in Public Drinking Water Adding fluoride to public drinking water reduces tooth decay and cavities in both children and adults by between 25% and 40%. This produces additional benefits, since poor oral health can lead to other infections and even negatively affect heart health. Despite this, some people argue against fluoridating water because it doesn’t leave people the right to choose whether to consume fluoride. In 2025, this reasoning led Utah to ban the use of fluoride in public water supplies statewide. Was the state right to do this? Be sure to explain how someone might object to your position and how you would answer them.
2. Online Sports Gambling Large numbers of American adults now participate in online sports gambling, using apps like FanDuel and Draft Kings. Critics of legalized gambling argue that it brings about many financial harms to those who participate in it, has fundamentally changed the way people engage with sports, and has even caused an increase in threats of violence against athletes. Defenders of gambling say that it’s a form of entertainment that people should have the freedom to engage in, even when they put their financial well-being at risk. Do governments have a moral obligation to restrict or ban gambling, or do they have a moral obligation to allow people the choice to engage in it? Be sure to explain how someone might object to your position and how you would answer them.
3. Barred Owls vs. Spotted Owls The barred owl is a large owl species that has expanded outside of its native habitats and can now be found throughout forests in the Western United States. In these forests, it is considered an invasive species that threatens the existence of the smaller spotted owl. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now allows trained professionals to shoot large numbers of barred owls to help spotted owls survive. Conservation groups say this is a necessary step to preserve the native spotted owl species. Animals rights advocates, however, say that it represents an unjustified killing of intelligent animals. Is the killing of barred owls to help spotted owls morally justified? Be sure to explain how someone might object to your position and how you would answer them.
4. Cell Phone Bans in Schools Cell phones are everywhere in our schools. Teachers complain that cell phone use distracts students from their studies, keeps students from engaging with one another socially, and even reduces students’ attention spans. For that reason, many schools have banned cell phones from their premises. Opponents of these bans argue that the bans violate students’ rights and remove an important communication device that students can use in emergencies. Are schools morally justified in implementing these bans? Be sure to explain how someone might object to your position and how you would answer them.
