Suppose a political scientist points out that today’s most d…
Questions
Suppоse а pоliticаl scientist pоints out thаt today's most democratic regimes emerged at strikingly different stages of economic development. This person most likely rejects _____.
Tоpic A: The Gаmer's DilemmаQuestiоn 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 wоrds)A new gаme called Empire of Dust allows players to build and manage a drug cartel. Players recruit members, establish territory, bribe officials, and eliminate rivals. The game includes mechanics for intimidating civilians, assassinating journalists and police officers, and trafficking both drugs and people across borders. Players can order torture of informants and execution of family members of rivals to send messages. The game has high production values and treats the subject matter seriously rather than satirically - you manage your criminal empire like a business. Some praise it as a complex strategy game that doesn't shy away from dark subjects; others condemn it for allowing players to roleplay as murderous criminals targeting real-world professions (journalists, police, judges).Using Luck's framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why.Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA jurisdiction that has adopted Pineau's "nonaggravated sexual assault" category is now debating what penalties should attach to it. Three positions emerge:Position 1: "Same penalties as standard rape, because non-consensual sex is non-consensual sex regardless of whether the perpetrator knew or should have known"Position 2: "Significantly reduced penalties (e.g., probation, mandatory education, community service) because the perpetrator may have genuinely believed they had consent"Position 3: "Tiered penalties based on level of recklessness: minimal penalty for 'negligent' cases (should have known better), moderate penalty for 'reckless' cases (ignored warning signs), approaching standard rape penalties for severe cases"Your Task:Part 1: Understanding Pineau's Framework (30 points)a) Purpose of the category: Explain WHY Pineau created the nonaggravated sexual assault category in the first place. What problem was it meant to solve?b) Addressing Roiphe: How does creating this category allow Pineau to take Roiphe's concerns about autonomy seriously while still protecting potential victims? What does Pineau concede to Roiphe, and what does she refuse to concede?c) Pineau's preferred penalties: Based on Pineau's overall goals (deterrence, "equalizing risk between the sexes," taking consent seriously), which position would she most likely prefer? Why?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Position 2 might create a "perverse incentive" problem. What behavior might significantly reduced penalties inadvertently encourage? How is this similar to the "punish neither" policy problem in both-drunk cases?b) Dixon's enforcement concern: Dixon agrees that proceeding without valid consent is morally wrong. Explain what concerns he might have about Position 1 or Position 3 from a legal enforcement perspective. What "new injustices" might criminal penalties create even when moral wrongness exists?c) Error minimization: Using the false positive/false negative framework, explain what types of errors each position might produce. Consider both the error of punishing someone who genuinely believed they had consent AND the error of failing to deter/punish reckless behavior.Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your position: Which position on penalties do you find most defensible? Or would you recommend something different from all three?b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your preferred approach compelling. Consider the goals of deterrence, fairness, proportionality, and avoiding perverse incentives. Use course concepts to support your reasoning.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your position. This could come from:Roiphe (objecting to ANY criminal penalties for this category)Pineau (if you chose insufficient penalties)Dixon (if you chose penalties he'd consider difficult to enforce fairly)Explain the objection thoroughly and fairly, then respond to it. Show you understand why someone would object even as you defend your position.Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you're unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Williams teaches an upper-level Economics course. She learns that students from wealthier backgrounds in her class have been hiring private tutors who essentially teach the entire course content one-on-one, giving these students a significant advantage. To level the playing field, she considers offering extra credit opportunities that don't require outside resources—things like attending free campus lectures, completing reflection assignments, or participating in study groups she organizes. Critics argue this doesn't solve the fundamental problem and creates new fairness issues.Your task: Would this extra credit policy address the inequality problem or create new problems? Apply course concepts about systematic injustice, fairness in extra credit, and alternatives to extra credit in your analysis.Question 2:Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there's a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you're unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society's perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond "both matter" to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: "Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it's a form of 'theft of credit.'" Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.
Tоpic A: The Gаmer's DilemmаQuesitоn1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 wоrds)A gаme called Righteous Cause allows players to roleplay as members of various terrorist organizations throughout history. Players plan and execute attacks including bombings, hostage-takings, and assassinations of political figures. Each organization has its own "ideology meter" that you must maintain by targeting appropriate victims and making propaganda videos. The game includes a mode where you play from the perspective of various real terrorist groups (fictional names, but clearly modeled on IRA, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.). The developers claim they're exploring the mindset of people who believe they're freedom fighters, and that understanding extremism is important. Critics argue the game glorifies terrorism and teaches tactics.Using Luck's framework and at least TWO of the arguments we discussed (Arguments 1, 2, 3, or 5), analyze whether this game is morally problematic. Be specific about which principles apply and why.Question 2:(50 minutes, ~500-600 words)Assume Luck is correct that we cannot distinguish virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. You must now choose a position: either defend the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle (all are morally wrong), or defend the permissibility of virtual immoral actions (all are morally permissible).Develop your argument by:(a) Identifying the strongest objection to your position(b) Responding to that objection with specific reasoning(c) Explaining what your position implies for one specific game or game genre (such as Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, Call of Duty, The Last of Us, etc.)Topic B: Sexual Consent & EthicsA university is deciding how to prevent sexual misconduct related to alcohol. Three competing proposals emerge:Approach X: "Mandatory education emphasizing personal responsibility for alcohol consumption and decision-making. If you choose to drink, you're responsible for your choices. No changes to consent policies."Approach Y: "Mandatory education teaching students to 'err on the side of no' when uncertain about consent. Create clear guidelines: if someone shows ANY signs of impairment, don't proceed. Violations result in disciplinary action for 'failure to ensure valid consent.'"Approach Z: "Mandatory education on both personal responsibility AND duty to ensure valid consent. Create a disciplinary category for 'reckless disregard for consent' (less severe than assault) when someone proceeds despite uncertainty about their partner's competence."Your Task:Part 1: Position Alignment (30 points)a) Match theorists to approaches: Explain which approach BEST aligns with each theorist's overall position and why:Roiphe's view on personal responsibility and autonomyPineau's "communicative sexuality" standard and legal enforcementDixon's moral agreement with Pineau but legal skepticismb) Central Park Mugger analogy: Use Dixon's Central Park Mugger analogy to explain what's wrong with Approach X from Pineau and Dixon's perspective. What does the analogy show about the relationship between foolish behavior and moral/legal responsibility?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) "Err on the side of false negative": Explain what it means to "err on the side of false negative" in the context of these approaches. Why do Dixon and Pineau believe this is the morally correct approach when uncertain about consent? What makes false positives worse than false negatives in this context?b) Enforcement challenges: If Dixon were evaluating Approach Y versus Approach Z, which might he prefer despite agreeing with Pineau morally? Identify specific practical problems with enforcing Approach Y (the stricter standard) that might make Dixon favor Approach Z instead.c) Both drunk complication: Explain how each approach would handle situations where both parties were impaired and both failed to "err on the side of no." Which approach deals with this complication most fairly?Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your recommendation: Which approach would you recommend the university adopt? Be specific about whether you'd choose X, Y, Z, or some modified version.b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your recommended approach compelling. Consider effectiveness at preventing harm, respecting student autonomy, and practical enforceability. Use course concepts like perverse incentives, error minimization, or the gap between moral and legal obligations.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your chosen approach from one of the theorists (or from a perspective represented by one of the other approaches). Explain this objection thoroughly, then respond to it. Your response should acknowledge what's legitimate about the objection while explaining why your approach is still preferable overall.Topic C: Academic EthicsQuestion 1:Read the scenario below carefully. Apply course concepts about grading, extra credit, college functions, and fairness to analyze the situation. Your response should identify relevant ethical issues, explain which arguments from the course material apply, and recommend a course of action with justification. If you're unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Professor Chen teaches Organic Chemistry, known as one of the hardest courses at the university. She notices that some students attend every office hour, complete all optional practice problems, and clearly work extremely hard, but still struggle to pass exams due to the difficulty of the material. She proposes adding an "effort component" worth 15% of the final grade, based on office hour attendance, completion of optional work, and documented study time. High-achieving students who don't attend office hours (because they don't need help) argue this penalizes success and rewards inefficiency.Your task: Should Professor Chen implement this policy? Use course concepts about what grades should measure (effort vs. achievement), the sorting function of college, and grade inflation to evaluate this proposal.Question 2: Instructions: Choose ONE of the following prompts. Take a clear position, construct your best argument for that position, anticipate the strongest objection someone could raise, and respond to that objection. Then consider whether there's a remaining weakness in your position and address it. If you're unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can. Partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts. (400-500 words)Option A: The Priority QuestionPrompt: From society's perspective (not just as a student or future employee), should colleges prioritize their sorting function (identifying and certifying capable students) or their educating function (developing student abilities)? Take a position and defend it. Then anticipate and respond to the strongest objection to your view.Option B: The Effort vs. Achievement DebatePrompt: Should grades primarily reflect student effort or student achievement? Take a position and construct an argument that goes beyond "both matter" to identify which should be prioritized when they conflict. Anticipate the strongest objection to your position and respond to it.Option C: The Fairness StandardPrompt: Consider this claim: "Extra credit is unfair to high-achieving students because it diminishes the value of their accomplishments—it's a form of 'theft of credit.'" Do you agree with this characterization? Take a position, defend it with argument, anticipate a strong objection, and respond.Option D: The Credential Inflation Trade-offPrompt: Some argue that being generous with grades (through extra credit, curving, etc.) helps current students but harms past graduates and future students by making degrees less valuable. Others argue this concern is overblown and that we should prioritize helping students currently in our classes. Which consideration should matter more to professors when setting grading policies? Take a position, defend it, anticipate an objection, and respond.