(Two class sessions: Monday and Wednesday. This is the only…
(Two class sessions: Monday and Wednesday. This is the only question on your exam. Day 1 (Monday): write Parts 1 and 2, roughly 600 words in total (Part 1 ≈ 200 words, Part 2 ≈ 400 words). Part 3 is shown now so you can plan ahead; if you finish early, you may begin Parts 3a and 3b. Day 2 (Wednesday): you will receive a short Day 2 Challenge written in response to your own Day 1 work. This is Part 3c. Respond to it first (≈ 200 words), then complete Parts 3a and 3b (≈ 300 words), letting your response inform them. You may also revise your Day 1 work. These word counts are guidelines; there is no penalty for going over. Point values show how to budget your effort. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can — partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts.) A new game called Revenge Simulator allows players to roleplay as victims of workplace discrimination who can then torture their former bosses in increasingly brutal ways. Players create their character’s backstory (being passed over for promotions, enduring harassment, wrongful termination, etc.) and then capture and punish the perpetrators. The torture mechanics are detailed and realistic. The game has been praised by some for addressing workplace injustice and giving voice to the powerless, but criticized by others for glorifying torture of real-world people (bosses, managers, HR representatives). Your Task: Part 1: Understanding the Framework (20 points) a) The dilemma (10): Explain the Gamer’s Dilemma. Why does the intuitive principle “it’s not real, so there is no victim” fail to separate virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape? Use the contrast between virtual killing and virtual murder (and the Presumptively Moral principle) to show what a successful solution to the dilemma would need to accomplish. b) Choosing your tools (10): Of Arguments 1, 2, 3, and 5, identify the TWO you consider most relevant to the game described above, and briefly justify your selection. (Choosing well is part of what is being assessed.) Part 2: Application (40 points) a) First argument (15): Apply the first of your two chosen arguments to this game in detail. Does the game survive the argument, and why or why not? Be specific about which principles apply. b) Second argument (15): Apply your second chosen argument in the same way. c) Righteous framing (10): Players are cast as victims retaliating against genuine wrongdoers. Could the Presumptively Moral principle vindicate this game the way it vindicates virtual killing? Why or why not? You may also consider whether Argument 4 is relevant, given that the victims belong to recognizable real-world groups. Part 3: Your Position and Defense (40 points) a) Verdict (10): Is this game morally problematic? Is it better than, worse than, or morally equivalent to a standard virtual murder game like Grand Theft Auto — and why? b) The bigger picture (15): Now assume Luck is correct that virtual murder cannot be distinguished from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. Does your analysis of this game push you toward the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle — the view that a virtual action is morally permissible only if the corresponding real-world action would be morally permissible, so ALL of these virtual immoral actions are wrong — or toward full permissibility (all are morally permissible, because none are real)? Take a position and defend it. c) Day 2 Challenge (15): Released on Day 2. On Wednesday you will receive a short challenge written specifically in response to your Day 1 answers — for example, a variation on the scenario, an objection drawn from course material, or an implication of your argument you may not have considered. Respond to it in about 200 words, then let your response inform your answers to (a) and (b).
Read Details(Two class sessions: Monday and Wednesday. This is the only…
(Two class sessions: Monday and Wednesday. This is the only question on your exam. Day 1 (Monday): write Parts 1 and 2, roughly 600 words in total (Part 1 ≈ 200 words, Part 2 ≈ 400 words). Part 3 is shown now so you can plan ahead; if you finish early, you may begin Parts 3a and 3b. Day 2 (Wednesday): you will receive a short Day 2 Challenge written in response to your own Day 1 work. This is Part 3c. Respond to it first (≈ 200 words), then complete Parts 3a and 3b (≈ 300 words), letting your response inform them. You may also revise your Day 1 work. These word counts are guidelines; there is no penalty for going over. Point values show how to budget your effort. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can — partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts.) A horror game 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. A recent update added an optional “arcade mode” that replaces the realistic violence with cartoonish, over-the-top effects. The game has developed a cult following. Your Task: Part 1: Understanding the Framework (20 points) a) The dilemma (10): Explain the Gamer’s Dilemma. Why does the intuitive principle “it’s not real, so there is no victim” fail to separate virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape? Use the contrast between virtual killing and virtual murder (and the Presumptively Moral principle) to show what a successful solution to the dilemma would need to accomplish. b) Choosing your tools (10): Of Arguments 1, 2, 3, and 5, identify the TWO you consider most relevant to the game described above, and briefly justify your selection. (Choosing well is part of what is being assessed.) Part 2: Application (40 points) a) First argument (15): Apply the first of your two chosen arguments to this game in detail. Does the game survive the argument, and why or why not? Be specific about which principles apply. b) Second argument (15): Apply your second chosen argument in the same way. c) Intentions versus effects (10): The developers invoke Spec Ops: The Line and claim that disturbing players is the point. Drawing on our discussion of Joker and American History X, do the developers’ stated intentions matter to the moral analysis? Does the optional arcade mode change anything? Part 3: Your Position and Defense (40 points) a) Verdict (10): Is this game morally problematic? Is it better than, worse than, or morally equivalent to a standard virtual murder game like Grand Theft Auto — and why? b) The bigger picture (15): Now assume Luck is correct that virtual murder cannot be distinguished from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. Does your analysis of this game push you toward the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle — the view that a virtual action is morally permissible only if the corresponding real-world action would be morally permissible, so ALL of these virtual immoral actions are wrong — or toward full permissibility (all are morally permissible, because none are real)? Take a position and defend it. c) Day 2 Challenge (15): Released on Day 2. On Wednesday you will receive a short challenge written specifically in response to your Day 1 answers — for example, a variation on the scenario, an objection drawn from course material, or an implication of your argument you may not have considered. Respond to it in about 200 words, then let your response inform your answers to (a) and (b).
Read Details(Two class sessions: Monday and Wednesday. This is the only…
(Two class sessions: Monday and Wednesday. This is the only question on your exam. Day 1 (Monday): write Parts 1 and 2, roughly 600 words in total (Part 1 ≈ 200 words, Part 2 ≈ 400 words). Part 3 is shown now so you can plan ahead; if you finish early, you may begin Parts 3a and 3b. Day 2 (Wednesday): you will receive a short Day 2 Challenge written in response to your own Day 1 work. This is Part 3c. Respond to it first (≈ 200 words), then complete Parts 3a and 3b (≈ 300 words), letting your response inform them. You may also revise your Day 1 work. These word counts are guidelines; there is no penalty for going over. Point values show how to budget your effort. If you’re unsure about a concept, explain your reasoning as best you can — partial credit is available for thoughtful attempts.) A new game 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). Your Task: Part 1: Understanding the Framework (20 points) a) The dilemma (10): Explain the Gamer’s Dilemma. Why does the intuitive principle “it’s not real, so there is no victim” fail to separate virtual murder from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape? Use the contrast between virtual killing and virtual murder (and the Presumptively Moral principle) to show what a successful solution to the dilemma would need to accomplish. b) Choosing your tools (10): Of Arguments 1, 2, 3, and 5, identify the TWO you consider most relevant to the game described above, and briefly justify your selection. (Choosing well is part of what is being assessed.) Part 2: Application (40 points) a) First argument (15): Apply the first of your two chosen arguments to this game in detail. Does the game survive the argument, and why or why not? Be specific about which principles apply. b) Second argument (15): Apply your second chosen argument in the same way. c) Argument 4 (10): The game’s victims include members of specific real-world professions — journalists, police, judges. Does Argument 4’s logic about singling out groups for harm apply here? What would “fixing” the game under Argument 4 require, and would the fix leave the game morally acceptable? Part 3: Your Position and Defense (40 points) a) Verdict (10): Is this game morally problematic? Is it better than, worse than, or morally equivalent to a standard virtual murder game like Grand Theft Auto — and why? b) The bigger picture (15): Now assume Luck is correct that virtual murder cannot be distinguished from virtual pedophilia and virtual rape. Does your analysis of this game push you toward the Righteous Gaming (RG) principle — the view that a virtual action is morally permissible only if the corresponding real-world action would be morally permissible, so ALL of these virtual immoral actions are wrong — or toward full permissibility (all are morally permissible, because none are real)? Take a position and defend it. c) Day 2 Challenge (15): Released on Day 2. On Wednesday you will receive a short challenge written specifically in response to your Day 1 answers — for example, a variation on the scenario, an objection drawn from course material, or an implication of your argument you may not have considered. Respond to it in about 200 words, then let your response inform your answers to (a) and (b).
Read Details