A cоnservаtive wоuld be mоst likely to cite Mаchiаvelli and Hobbes when defending which of these claims?
Tоpic A: The Gаmer's DilemmаQuestiоn 1:(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 Rodriguez chairs the department reviewing grading policies. Data shows that average GPAs in the department have risen from 2.8 to 3.4 over the past decade, with increased use of extra credit being a major factor. Employers and graduate schools have started questioning the value of the department's degrees. Some faculty argue that the higher grades reflect better teaching and more opportunities for learning; others argue this represents credential inflation that harms their best students. The department must decide whether to restrict or eliminate extra credit policies.Your task: Should the department restrict extra credit use? Apply course concepts about grade inflation, the sorting function of college, and how changes to grading policies affect different stakeholders (current students, past graduates, employers, society).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 DilemmаQuestiоn 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 wоrds)A horror gаme called Apex Predator allows players to roleplay as a serial killer who stalks, captures, and murders victims. The game emphasizes planning, stealth, and avoiding police detection. Players choose their "signature" methods and can keep trophies from victims. The game includes detailed mechanics for disposal of bodies and cleaning crime scenes. Unlike games where you play as a detective hunting serial killers, this game puts you in the killer's role throughout. The developers claim it's a "dark psychological thriller" meant to disturb players and make them question why they're playing, similar to Spec Ops: The Line. However, there's no forced moral reckoning - players can complete the game successfully by being an efficient serial killer. The game has developed a cult following.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 state legislature is considering reforms to sexual assault law. The debate centers on what standard of evidence should be required for "nonaggravated sexual assault" cases (Pineau's proposed category for impaired consent situations).Proposal A: "Require the same high standard of evidence ('beyond reasonable doubt' with clear proof of refusal or incapacitation) for both nonaggravated sexual assault and standard rape"Proposal B: "For nonaggravated sexual assault, shift burden to the accused to show they had reasonable grounds to believe consent was valid (i.e., accused must prove they took adequate steps to ensure consent)"Proposal C: "For nonaggravated sexual assault, use a lower standard of evidence ('preponderance of evidence' in other words ‘more likely than not’) while keeping 'beyond reasonable doubt' for standard rape"Your Task:Part 1: Understanding the Framework (30 points)a) Pineau's nonaggravated assault category: Explain what "nonaggravated sexual assault" is and how it differs from "standard rape." Why does Pineau think creating this distinct legal category is important?b) Roiphe's objection to the category: How would Roiphe object to the very creation of this legal category, regardless of which evidence standard is used? What does she think happens to women's autonomy when we create special protections for impaired consent cases?c) Dixon's moral vs. legal distinction: Dixon agrees with Pineau that having sex when uncertain about consent is morally wrong. Explain why he might still worry about ANY of these proposals from a legal enforcement perspective.Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)a) False positive/false negative analysis: Apply Pineau's framework to explain why she might prefer Proposal B or C over Proposal A. What type of error is she most concerned about preventing, and why does she consider it more harmful than the alternative error?b) New injustices: Using Dixon's concern about creating "new injustices" through legal enforcement, identify a specific problem that might arise from Proposal B (shifting burden of proof) or Proposal C (lowering evidence standard). What could go wrong?c) Limiting cases check: Explain how the "Fraternity Gang Rape" case versus the "Regretted Sexual Encounter" case should be handled under the proposals. Which cases would fall under "nonaggravated sexual assault" versus "standard rape" versus "no crime"?Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)a) State your position: Which proposal do you think strikes the best balance? Or should the legislature reject the nonaggravated assault category entirely?b) Defend your choice: Explain what makes your chosen approach compelling. Consider both the need to protect potential victims AND the need to protect against wrongful accusations. Use course concepts like perverse incentives, error minimization, or enforcement feasibility.c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Choose one theorist (Roiphe, Pineau, or Dixon) who would object to your position. Explain their objection fairly and in detail, then explain how you would respond to it. Show that you understand the force of the objection even as you explain why your position is still defensible.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 Johnson's Chemistry class was disrupted when a campus-wide illness caused 40% of students to miss the midterm exam. Rather than require make-up exams (which would create extra work and raise concerns about different exam versions), Professor Johnson offers all students—including those who took the original midterm—the option to complete a research project worth the same points as the midterm. Students can either keep their midterm grade or replace it with the project grade, whichever is higher. Some students who performed well on the midterm despite being sick argue this is unfair.Your task: Does this policy constitute extra credit? Is it justified given the circumstances? Apply course concepts about risk, fairness, and appropriate 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.