Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500…
Topic A: The Gamer’s DilemmaQuestion 1:(40 minutes, ~400-500 words)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).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 revising its sexual misconduct policy specifically for cases where both parties were voluntarily intoxicated. The disciplinary committee is debating between three approaches:Policy X: “No disciplinary action when both parties were voluntarily intoxicated, as both bear equal responsibility for their impaired judgment”Policy Y: “Investigate to determine which party was more impaired or more responsible, and hold only that party accountable”Policy Z: “Hold both parties responsible for failure to ensure valid consent, but impose reduced penalties compared to cases where one party was sober”Your Task:Part 1: Theoretical Positions (30 points)Explain which policy each theorist would prefer and why:a) Roiphe’s position: Which policy would she prefer? Use her concept of women as “autonomous adults responsible for the consequences of their use of alcohol.”b) Pineau’s position: Which policy would she prefer? Reference her “communicative sexuality” standard and the duty both parties have to ensure valid consent.c) Dixon’s position: Dixon agrees with Pineau morally but has concerns about legal enforcement. How might his position differ from Pineau’s when choosing between these policies?Part 2: Framework Application (35 points)Apply key concepts from the course to analyze these policies:a) Perverse incentive analysis: Explain why Policy X creates a “perverse incentive” that undermines Pineau’s goals. What behavior would this policy inadvertently encourage? Why is this the opposite of what Pineau wants?b) Enforcement challenges: Explain one practical problem with fairly enforcing Policy Y or Policy Z. Consider issues like evidence, determining relative responsibility, or the problem of preemptive accusations.c) Error types: Using Pineau’s false positive/false negative framework, identify what type of error each policy might produce. Which policy minimizes the most harmful type of error?Part 3: Your Position and Defense (35 points)Defend your own view on which policy the university should adopt:a) State your position clearly: Which policy do you think best balances the competing concerns of fairness, victim protection, and practical enforceability?b) Explain what makes it compelling: Give at least two reasons why this policy is preferable to the alternatives. Use concepts from the course (false +/-, perverse incentives, “erring on the side of no,” autonomy concerns, enforcement feasibility, etc.).c) Anticipate and respond to an objection: Identify the strongest objection to your chosen policy from one of the theorists who would disagree with you (Roiphe, Pineau, or Dixon). Explain this objection fairly, then respond to it. Your response should show why your position can address this concern or why the objection, though legitimate, doesn’t outweigh your policy’s advantages.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.