Question 1

Explain the Gamer's Dilemma. Then, do your best either (a) to defend one of the five solutions to the Gamer's Dilemma against Luck's objection or (b) come up with your own solution.

Accepted Answer

-Demonstrate understanding of the Gamer's Dilemma.
-Develop either (a) a thoughtful defense of one of the five solutions that Luck discusses or (b) a novel defense that is clearly distinct from the five Luck discusses.
-Correctly identify and defend controversial premises using sound reasoning, helpful analogies, appeals to plausible principles, etc.

Question 2

Assume that both virtual pedophilia and virtual murder are wrong. Given this, do your best to argue that it's also wrong to watch movies with gratuitous violence. Then, describe how someone might criticize your argument.

Accepted Answer

-Demonstrate understanding of the Gamer's Dilemma.
-Demonstrate the ability to extend Luck's reasoning to moves with gratuitous violence, correctly identifying and defending controversial claims using sound reasoning, helpful analogies, appeals to plausible principles, etc.
-Suggest a criticism of this extension that reveals an appreciation of the objections that Luck addresses in his paper.

Question 3

The Gamer's Dilemma is both compelling and surprising-until you read about it, it probably never occurred to you that virtual murder might be morally problematic (or that virtual pedophilia might be morally okay), and it's really hard to say where Morgan Luck's argument goes wrong (if it goes wrong at all). When an argument is both compelling and surprising, how should you respond? Should you stick to your guns, assuming that there must be something wrong with it because it's so surprising? Or should you accept it because it's compelling? Or is some other response called for? Defend your answer.

Accepted Answer

-Include a thesis that's focused and appropriate given the assignment.
-Clearly and succinctly state the main argument for the thesis.
-Correctly identify and defend the argument's controversial premises using sound reasoning, well-chosen examples, insightful analogies, etc.

Question 4

Why does Luck think that most of us are morally okay with virtual murder?

Accepted Answer

Virtual murder in video games does not result in actual harm to real people, which is why many consider it morally acceptable.

Question 5

If, in a game, I kill someone who attacked me, then I've definitely committed virtual murder.

Accepted Answer

In a game, actions such as killing are part of the gameplay mechanics and do not equate to real-life actions or crimes like murder.

Question 6

According to Luck, although social conventions might explain why people are more comfortable with virtual murder than virtual pedophilia, ________:

Accepted Answer

Social conventions don't justify virtual pedophilia.

Question 7

Luck says that one problem with the claim that virtual pedophilia increases the likelihood of actual pedophilia, but virtual murder doesn't increase the likelihood of actual murder, is that ________:

Accepted Answer

Virtual pedophilia might actually decrease the likelihood of actual pedophilia in some cases.

Question 8

Which argument would be akin to asserting that, by virtue of the fact slavery was socially acceptable within ancient Rome, it was also moral during that time?

Accepted Answer

The "social acceptability" argument suggests that if something is widely accepted by society, it is therefore moral, similar to the argument about slavery in ancient Rome.

Question 9

When Luck discusses the possibility that you're harming yourself by engaging in virtual pedophilia, what does he mean?

Accepted Answer

The answer of When Luck discusses the possibility that you're...

Question 10

Luck argues that those who engage in virtual murder often enjoy what they're doing. He says this to point what out?

Accepted Answer

Luck argues that it's implausible for virtual murderers to enjoy only the competitive aspect, suggesting they might also enjoy the act of virtual murder itself.

Question 11

Luck points out that one argument seems to imply that, as long as a game allowed you to molest people of all different ages, it would be OK to play it. Which argument is this?

Accepted Answer

The "unfairly singling out a group for harm" argument suggests that if a game targets a specific group for harm, it is problematic. If the game allowed molestation of all ages, it wouldn't be singling out a specific group, thus seemingly making it "OK" under this flawed argument.

Question 12

Why shouldn't we say that harming a child is always worse than harming an adult?

Accepted Answer

The severity of harm should be considered in context; minor harm to a child may not be worse than severe harm to an adult.

Question 13

The Gamer's Dilemma is that:

Accepted Answer

The Gamer's Dilemma, as proposed by philosopher Morgan Luck, suggests that we face a moral inconsistency if we treat virtual murder as permissible while condemning virtual pedophilia, or vice versa. It challenges us to either find a relevant moral distinction between the two or to treat them both as either permissible or impermissible.

Question 14

What is Phillip Zema's point in talking about Sally the acting prodigy and Bill Gates? Do you think that these examples are helpful in illustrating his point? Or do you think that they are misleading when used in contrast with the student-athletes case?

Accepted Answer

The answer of What is Phillip Zema's point in talking...

Question 15

Review Phillip Zema's three premises that support his two conclusions about the NCAA's treatment of student-athletes. Then, develop an objection to one of these premises. How might Zema respond to your objection?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Review Phillip Zema's three premises that support...

Question 16

Phillip Zema argues that the NCAA does not exploit student-athletes, even if it does treat them unfairly. Do a Google search on how much money colleges and universities receive from athletic programs (you can type in, "how much do universities make from sports?"). This information might change how you think about the exploitation question. Does it? If so, why? If not, why not?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Phillip Zema argues that the NCAA does...

Question 17

Which of the following is NOT a claim that Zema makes about many of the prohibitions against athletes receiving compensation from non-school affiliated sources?

Accepted Answer

Zema argues that prohibitions against athletes receiving compensation are arbitrary, unfair, non-beneficial, non-detrimental, and not a threat to college sports, thus making all the claims listed.

Question 18

What is Zema talking about when he refers to "outside compensations?"

Accepted Answer

Zema is referring to compensations that are currently prohibited by the NCAA's policies for student-athletes.

Question 19

Which of the following is one of the reasons why the NCAA exists at all, according to Zema?

Accepted Answer

The NCAA exists to protect and promote the educational well-being of student-athletes, ensuring that their academic interests are prioritized alongside their athletic commitments.

Question 20

Which of the following is an example of an activity from which student-athletes are prohibited from receiving compensation?

Accepted Answer

The answer of Which of the following is an example...

Quiz 26: The Gamers Dilemma: An Analysis of the Arguments for the Moral Distinction Between Virtual Murder and Virtual Pedophilia