Week 10 Philosophy Workshop: The Community Garden and the Night Key

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you tested three answers to the question of where morality comes from: a culture's beliefs, God's commands, and self-interest. You met Hume's gap between what is and what ought to be, the reformer objection, the Euthyphro dilemma, the two kinds of egoism, and Glaucon's ring of Gyges. In this workshop you take one illustrative packet from a community garden whose members are arguing about why anyone should tend the garden fairly. You reconstruct four short arguments and key each for validity. Then you test a variation of the ring of Gyges, the night key, and ask what a member alone with the shared money has reason to do. You write a short dialogue between an ethical egoist and a critic, each in their strongest form. Last, you check a chatbot's version of the same work and correct its slips by hand, starting with whose story the ring of Gyges is.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: Which of the garden's four arguments are valid, which ones move from belief to right or deny the antecedent, and what reason does the member with the night key have to leave the money alone?

Workshop data: Community garden packet: four illustrative arguments and the night key, a variation of the ring of Gyges

Source: An illustrative packet of four short arguments and one thought-experiment variation written for this course's workshop; it describes no real garden or person, and its premises are written for teaching, not claims the course endorses.

• Rows: 4 arguments (A1 to A4) and 1 thought-experiment variation; the reconstruction table has 4 rows and the night-key table has 4
• Arguments: A1 fairness and the fear of being seen; A2 what most members think; A3 the founders and the rules; A4 self-interest and watering a neighbor's plot
• Thought-experiment variation: a member holding the only key to the garden shed overnight, with the shared seed money inside and no cameras, labelled as a variation of Glaucon's ring of Gyges

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

• A free word processor or note-taking app for arguments in standard form and short dialogues, with the pinned public-domain texts on Project Gutenberg and the Internet Classics Archive open beside it; and one approved chatbot used as a sparring partner whose reconstructions, quotations, and attributions the student checks word for word against the pinned text and record before trusting them
• A free word processor or note-taking app
• One approved chatbot

Ways of working

• reconstruct-the-argument
• test-the-thought-experiment
• write-the-dialogue

Procedure

1. Read the garden packet in Part 2 twice. In your notes, copy each of A1 to A4 into standard form: number the premises P1 and P2, and write the conclusion last as C, introduced by So. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Four reconstructions, each with numbered premises and one conclusion line that begins with So.
2. In the first table, name each argument's form or the move it makes, and write valid or invalid with a one-sentence reason that uses the definition of validity. For each invalid argument, write a same-shape argument on a new topic whose premises are true and whose conclusion is false. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Every row of the first table has a form, a key, and a reason; each invalid row has a working counterexample; no row says sound or unsound.
3. Count the arguments in the second table: how many are valid and how many are invalid. Show the subtraction from the 4 arguments in the packet. Check: A count of valid and invalid arguments, with the subtraction shown.
4. Work the night key in the third table: say what an egoist would say the member has reason to do, what a critic would say, one change to the case that pulls your intuition the other way (label it as your own variation), and what the night key changes compared with Glaucon's original story. Check: Each row is filled in, your own change is labelled as a variation, and the original story is credited to Glaucon in Book II of Plato's Republic.
5. Write a short dialogue of four to six lines between an ethical egoist and a critic about the night key. Give each speaker their strongest point, have each answer the other, and end with one plain sentence naming where they disagree. Tool: A free word processor or note-taking app. Check: Each speaker answers the other, neither is a weakened version, and a closing sentence names the disagreement.
6. Paste the prompt from Part 6 into one approved chatbot after your completed work, read its reply, and write the critique report. Or, on the equivalent route, mark up the printed flawed analysis instead. Tool: One approved chatbot. Check: A report that quotes at least two slips and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 10.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if you cannot open a word processor or a note-taking app.

Copy the three tables by hand onto paper or into any text file, read the packet from this page, write the four reconstructions, the count, the night-key table, and the dialogue by hand, and complete every analysis question and the critique step in the same order. Submit a photo or scan of the paper, or the text file, for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Key each argument by its form before you judge it, so a key rests on the pattern and not on whether the conclusion sounds right.

Student scaffold table 1

Argument	Form or move	Valid or invalid	Reason	Counterexample if invalid
A1 (fairness and the fear of being seen)
A2 (what most members think)
A3 (the founders and the rules)
A4 (self-interest and watering a neighbor's plot)

Count the keys so every number you report traces back to the table above.

Student scaffold table 2

Count	Number	How you got it
Arguments in the packet	4	Given in the packet
Valid arguments
Invalid arguments

Run the variation one step at a time, so your verdict about the member's reasons is argued rather than asserted.

Student scaffold table 3

Step	What you find
What an ethical egoist says the member has reason to do, and why
What a critic says, and why
Your own change to the case that pulls the other way (a labelled variation)
What the night key changes from Glaucon's story

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

1. How many of the packet's 4 arguments are valid, and how many invalid? Show the subtraction, and name the form of each valid one.
2. Why are A2 and A4 invalid even if their premises are true? Explain each with your same-shape counterexample and one plain sentence about the garden.
3. Using your night-key table, explain what the egoist and the critic each say the member has reason to do, and which way your own variation pulls. Keep the original story credited to Glaucon in Book II of Plato's Republic.
4. A3 has the same shape as the Euthyphro dilemma. Connect it to divine command theory: what would the founders' version of the reply from God's good nature look like, and what would a critic say back? End with one plain sentence.
5. What can a validity check not tell you about A1 or A3, and what can the night key not show about how real gardeners behave?
6. Choose one reflection: (a) which argument in the packet did you first key the wrong way, and what in this week's definitions changed your mind? or (b) which speaker in your dialogue did you start out agreeing with, and did your view survive writing the other side at its strongest?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've completed my reconstruction table, my count, my night-key table, and my short dialogue above. Here is an illustrative workshop packet from my philosophy course. Community garden packet (illustrative): the members of a neighborhood community garden argue about why anyone should tend the garden fairly. A1: If members tend the garden fairly only because they fear being seen, then a member who could never be seen would take from other members' plots. Members tend the garden fairly only because they fear being seen. So a member who could never be seen would take from other members' plots. A2: Most members of the garden think taking a few tomatoes from a neighbor's plot is fine. So taking a few tomatoes from a neighbor's plot is fine. A3: Either the garden's rules are fair because the founders made them, or the founders made them because they are fair. The rules are not fair merely because the founders made them. So the founders made the rules because they are fair. A4: If every member acts only from self-interest, then no member waters a neighbor's plot without expecting something back. Not every member acts only from self-interest. So some member waters a neighbor's plot without expecting something back. The night key (a variation of Glaucon's ring of Gyges, written for this workshop): one member is given the only key to the garden shed overnight, where the shared seed money is kept; there are no cameras, and no one would ever know if some of it went missing. Please do six things. First, put each of A1 to A4 in standard form, and say whether each is valid and whether it is sound. Second, tell me who tells the story of the ring of Gyges, in which book of which work, and who raised the is-ought problem, in which book, and when. Third, give me the exact words of the ring of Gyges story, and tell me whether those are Plato's own words. Fourth, tell me which book 'I think, therefore I am' comes from. Fifth, summarize psychological egoism, ethical egoism, and normative cultural relativism, and say whether anyone outside Europe ever asked why a person should be moral. Sixth, tell me whether the member with the night key would take the money, and end with a balanced summary.

Test the response for these likely failures:

• Chatbots often call A4 valid, reading 'not every member is selfish, so some member waters without expecting anything back' as if it followed by denying the consequent.
• Chatbots often say A1 is sound, or that it proves people are only good when watched, without asking whether its second premise is true.
• Chatbots often say Socrates tells the ring of Gyges story as his own argument.
• Chatbots sometimes place the ring story in Book VII of the Republic, or date Hume's Treatise to the 1748 Enquiry.
• Asked for the exact words of the Gyges story, chatbots usually supply a quoted passage in quotation marks as if it were verified text.
• Chatbots present an English sentence from the Republic as Plato's own words.
• Chatbots usually place 'I think, therefore I am' in the Meditations of 1641.
• Chatbots often reduce ethical egoism to 'be greedy and cheat whenever you can', and normative relativism to 'anything goes'.
• Chatbots sometimes say the question of why be moral was first asked by European philosophers.
• Asked about the night key, chatbots often announce that the member would take the money, or that self-interest settles the matter.
• Chatbots often end a 'balanced' summary by saying science has shown everyone is selfish, or that relativism has been refuted.

Write 3-5 sentences naming what the chatbot got right and at least two places where it slipped into one of the failures above, quoting its words and correcting each by hand against the packet and Chapter 10.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, Objective 6 (explain and apply the major ethical theories — utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory — and the challenges of relativism and egoism, to moral cases) and Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis of the community garden packet, printed here in full: "A1, A2, A3, and A4 are all valid, and A4 is denying the consequent, so some gardener is truly unselfish. A1 is sound, which proves that people are only good when someone is watching. Socrates tells the ring of Gyges story in Book VII of the Republic, and Hume raised the is-ought problem in his Enquiry of 1748. Plato's own words in the story are quoted here in full. Descartes also wrote 'I think, therefore I am' in the Meditations. Ethical egoism says you should cheat whenever you can, and relativists think anything goes. Asking why anyone should be moral was a European invention. The member with the night key would certainly take the money. To sum up fairly, science has shown that everyone is selfish." Mark every error you find, name the failure it shows, and correct it by hand against the packet and Chapter 10; find at least two. Submit the marked-up analysis with your corrections in place of the chatbot report and share link. If you take the egoist side in your dialogue, rebuild the printed claim about ethical egoism's critics at its strongest as a critic would state it; if you take the critic's side, rebuild the printed claim about ethical egoism at its strongest as an enlightened egoist would state it.

Part 7 — What to Submit

• The three completed tables from Part 4, including the count with its subtraction
• The four reconstructions, the two counterexamples, and the four-to-six-line dialogue
• Written answers to all six analysis questions
• The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Philosophy Workshop report on one illustrative community garden packet: three completed tables (four arguments keyed for validity with reasons and a counterexample for each invalid one; the count of valid and invalid arguments with its subtraction; and the night key worked step by step), a four-to-six-line dialogue between an ethical egoist and a critic ending in a plain sentence, written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same work, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or labelled tables with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria. Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria

Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Accurate reconstruction and validity judgment	All four arguments are in standard form, each form or move is named and keyed valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, both invalid ones have working same-shape counterexamples, and the count is worked with its subtraction.	Most arguments are reconstructed and keyed with reasons, but one is misnamed or miskeyed, a counterexample does not work, a reason is missing, or the count is missing or off.	The reconstructions are missing, or the keys rest on whether conclusions sound true rather than on form.
Thought-experiment test	The night-key table states what an egoist and a critic each say the member has reason to do, adds one labelled variation that pulls the intuition the other way, and says what the night key changes from Glaucon's story.	The table is mostly complete, but one side's view is missing, the student's own change is not labelled as a variation, or the comparison with the original story is missing.	No night-key table appears, or the variation is treated as Glaucon's own story.
Two positions stated fairly in dialogue	The dialogue gives the ethical egoist and the critic each their strongest point, has each answer the other, states egoism in its enlightened form, and ends in one plain sentence naming where they disagree.	Both positions appear, but one is weakened, the speakers talk past each other, or the closing sentence is missing.	No dialogue, or only one side is stated.
Caught-and-corrected AI slip, on either route	The chatbot critique report, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis, quotes at least two errors, names the failure each shows, and corrects each by hand against the packet and Chapter 10; either route earns this band equally.	One error is quoted and corrected on either route, or errors are named without a correction.	No critique on either route, or chatbot output is pasted without checking it.
Accurate sourcing and reflection	The ring of Gyges is credited to Glaucon in Book II of Plato's Republic, the is-ought problem to Hume's Treatise, the night key is labelled as a variation, nothing is invented, and the reflection answers option (a) or (b) with a reason.	The sourcing is accurate but the reflection is thin, or the reflection is strong but one attribution goes beyond the pinned record.	An invented quotation, work, or date appears, and there is no reflection.

Quality Gate

• Every argument is in standard form, with numbered premises and a conclusion line introduced by So.
• Every key says valid or invalid with a reason from the definition, each invalid argument has a working same-shape counterexample, and no argument in the packet is called sound or unsound.
• The night key is labelled as a variation of the ring of Gyges, any further change is labelled as the student's own variation, and the ring story is credited to Glaucon in Book II of Plato's Republic, not to Socrates.
• Each position in the dialogue is stated as its strongest defenders would, and no verdict is announced on what the member would or should do.
• No quotation, work, date, or philosopher's view is invented anywhere in the submission.
• The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors by hand.