Week 13 — Who May Rule, and How Far?

Assignment 12 of the term — credit this week's sentences to their authors, key an argument and reconstruct another, run the veil of ignorance on a new case, weigh the debate between Rawls and Nozick fairly, and explain the veil to someone new to philosophy.

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into exact, well-reasoned work. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned legitimacy and social contract theory, Hobbes's state of nature and absolute sovereign, Locke's natural rights and consent, Rousseau's general will, Mill's harm principle, Rawls's original position, veil of ignorance, equal basic liberties, and difference principle, and Nozick's entitlement theory, minimal state, and experience machine. In Week 2 you learned standard form, validity, the invalid pattern every A is B; this C is B; so this C is A, and denying the consequent; and in Weeks 11 and 12 you met the other three ethical theories. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Philosophy Workshop practice the same ideas from other angles; this assignment is where you put them together.

The task

You will use this week's pinned sources: Dataset C's two quotations (Q9 from Hobbes and Q10 from Mill, both English originals), Dataset H, the social contract set, Dataset J, the theory-matching set (illustrative), and Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). The premises of Datasets B and J are written for teaching and are not claims the course endorses; the course keys Dataset B's arguments for validity only, never for soundness, because the premises are open questions. The everyday cases below were written for this assignment; they are illustrative, describe no real person or place, and raise no current policy question.

Part A — get the sources right, then reconstruct. A post on a study-group forum reads: "Rousseau wrote that the life of man without government is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,' and Locke's harm principle says a government may never limit anyone's liberty. Locke also said our natural rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Do three things:

• Correct the post. Say whose work describes the life of man in that sentence, and quote the sentence exactly as the course pins it; say whose harm principle is and quote it exactly; say why "a government may never limit anyone's liberty" misstates the harm principle, and which kind of limit the principle rules out; and give Locke's natural rights correctly.
• Key argument 5. Write Dataset B's argument 5 in standard form ("All just laws protect the vulnerable. This law protects the vulnerable. So this law is just."), name its pattern, key it for validity with a one-sentence reason from the definition of validity, and give a counterexample of your own: a law that protects the vulnerable and is still unjust.
• Reconstruct the harm principle on a case. A building's residents propose a rule that bans anyone from sitting on their own balcony after dark, for their own safety. Write the reasoning that the harm principle rules this out in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So"), with the harm principle, in your own words, as P1, mark any premise you add as "(added)", name the form, and say whether it is valid.

Then work this problem, showing your reasoning:

1. Hobbes's Leviathan appeared in 1651, and Locke's Two Treatises of Government carries a title page dated 1690. How many years separate them?

Part B — step behind the veil, then weigh the debate. Work this problem first, showing your reasoning:

1. Mill's On Liberty appeared in 1859, and Rawls's A Theory of Justice in 1971. How many years separate them?

Then do three things:

• Run the veil on a new case. A student housing cooperative must decide how to share out its rooms, some larger and some smaller, and asks every member to choose a plan as if they did not know which room they would get or how much they could pay. Describe what the veil of ignorance hides from the members and what it leaves them, describe one plan the difference principle would permit and one it would rule out, and say which theory Dataset J's statement "Choose principles of justice as if you did not know whether you would be rich or poor." is keyed to.
• Weigh the debate. State the entitlement objection to Rawls's difference principle in its strongest form, with an example of your own, and give the reply from Rawls's side; then state the history objection to Nozick's entitlement theory in its strongest form, with an example of your own, and give the reply from Nozick's side.
• Name the disagreement. End with one plain sentence naming exactly where Rawls and Nozick disagree.

Explain it to a non-expert

A relative who has never taken philosophy says, "The veil of ignorance just means people should be ignorant when they make rules, right?" Write a 3–5 sentence message in everyday words that explains what the veil hides and what it leaves, why choosing that way is meant to make the rules fair, and one honest limit or open question about the idea. Explain any term your relative might not know.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a cousin who asks what "valid" means in logic. Model answer: "An argument is valid when its conclusion has to be true if its starting claims are true, the way a recipe works if the ingredients are right. Valid does not mean the starting claims are true. It only means the reasoning holds together. One limit: a valid argument with a false starting claim can still lead you to a false conclusion."

Use that pattern for your message to your relative, with your own explanation of the veil of ignorance.

Reflect on your revision

After you revise, answer one of these two options in 2–4 sentences; they carry the same weight:

• (a) Which change made your sourcing or one of your reconstructions more exact, and which definition or pinned quotation showed you it was needed?
• (b) Which change made your statement of one of the objections or replies stronger, and what had you left out at first?

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft Part A, Part B, and your message to your relative before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Reply in your own words. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one correction, reconstruction, or statement of an objection or reply, even if your first attempt was strong, and then reflect using option (a) or (b).
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write your corrections, reconstructions, or message for you. If it changes a word in either pinned quotation (Hobbes's "poore" and Mill's "civilised" included), lists Locke's rights as anything but life, liberty, and property, turns the debate into a current political argument, or says which political theory is right, check that against Chapter 13 before you use it.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory philosophy course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's ideas: legitimacy and social contract theory; Thomas Hobbes's Leviathan (1651), its state of nature as a war of every one against every one, and its sentence "And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."; John Locke's natural rights to life, liberty, and property and government by consent (Two Treatises, title page dated 1690); Jean-Jacques Rousseau's general will in The Social Contract (1762); John Stuart Mill's harm principle in On Liberty (1859), "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."; John Rawls's original position, veil of ignorance, equal basic liberties, and difference principle in A Theory of Justice (1971); and Robert Nozick's entitlement theory and minimal state in Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974). Do not write my assignment for me and do not invent work I did not show. Never invent a quotation, a philosopher's view, or a source; quote only the two sentences above, word for word; never call a Dataset B argument sound or unsound; never argue a current policy question or name a living politician or party; and never announce a verdict on which political theory is right.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. Part A: I correct a forum post that says "Rousseau wrote that the life of man without government is 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,' and Locke's harm principle says a government may never limit anyone's liberty. Locke also said our natural rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I say whose work describes the life of man in that sentence and quote it exactly, say whose harm principle is and quote it exactly, say why "a government may never limit anyone's liberty" misstates the harm principle and which kind of limit it rules out, and give Locke's natural rights correctly. I key Dataset B's argument 5 (illustrative): "All just laws protect the vulnerable. This law protects the vulnerable. So this law is just." I name its pattern, judge its validity with a reason, and give my own counterexample. I reconstruct, in standard form (P1, P2, then C introduced by "So") with the harm principle in my own words as P1 and any added premise marked "(added)", the reasoning that the harm principle rules out a rule banning residents from sitting on their own balconies after dark for their own safety; I name its form and judge its validity. Part B: I run the veil of ignorance on a student housing cooperative sharing out larger and smaller rooms, describe what the veil hides and leaves, describe one plan the difference principle permits and one it rules out, and say which theory Dataset J's statement "Choose principles of justice as if you did not know whether you would be rich or poor." is keyed to; I state the entitlement objection to Rawls and the history objection to Nozick at their strongest with my own examples and give each side's reply; and I end with one plain sentence naming where Rawls and Nozick disagree.
PROBLEM P1: Hobbes's Leviathan appeared in 1651, and Locke's Two Treatises of Government carries a title page dated 1690. How many years separate them?
PROBLEM P2: Mill's On Liberty appeared in 1859, and Rawls's A Theory of Justice in 1971. How many years separate them?
For P1 I must also supply the forum-post correction, the keyed argument 5 with my counterexample, and the harm-principle reconstruction. For P2 I must also supply the veil analysis, the two objections with replies, and the plain sentence; then a 3-5 sentence message in everyday words to a relative who thinks the veil of ignorance means being ignorant. After revising, I reflect using option (a) or (b) from my assignment page.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply, out of 100 points. Sourcing and attribution (P1): 20 if the correction credits the life-of-man sentence to Hobbes's Leviathan and quotes it exactly, credits the harm principle to Mill's On Liberty and quotes it exactly, says the harm principle permits limits that prevent harm to others and rules out paternalism, gives Locke's natural rights as life, liberty, and property, and works the P1 year gap; 10 if at least three but not all of those five parts are accurate; 0 if fewer. Argument reconstruction (P1): 25 if argument 5 is in standard form, keyed invalid with a reason from the definition of validity and the pattern every A is B; this C is B; so this C is A, with a counterexample in which the premises are true and the conclusion false; and the balcony reasoning is in standard form with the harm principle as P1, any added premise marked, its form named as denying the consequent or another valid form the student shows, and judged valid; 15 if one of the two is complete and the other has one gap; 5 if at least one is keyed or named with a reason but both have gaps; 0 otherwise. Evaluation of the accounts (P2): 25 if the veil analysis says what the veil hides and leaves, gives one plan the difference principle permits and one it rules out, and keys the Dataset J statement to social contract theory; both objections are stated at their strongest with the student's own examples and each side's reply; the plain sentence names the disagreement; and the P2 year gap is worked; 15 if one of those parts is missing; 5 if two or more are missing or an account or objection is stated in a weakened form; 0 if no accurate evaluation. Plain-language explanation for a non-expert (P2): 15 if the message is in everyday words, says what the veil hides and leaves, explains why choosing that way is meant to make rules fair, and names a limit or open question; 8 if it can be followed but omits one of those points or leaves a term unexplained; 0 if missing. Revision and reflection (P2): 15 if I show a before-and-after change plus a reflection on why it is better; 8 if only one of the two; 0 if neither.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my reply. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to check it against the definitions and the pinned sources. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word reply is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both problems with the forum-post correction, the keyed argument 5 with a counterexample, the harm-principle reconstruction, the veil analysis, the two objections with replies, the plain sentence, and the relative message AND revised at least one part AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my correction, my reconstructions, my evaluation, and my message]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work: the forum-post correction, the keyed argument 5 with your counterexample, the balcony reconstruction, and the first year gap; the veil analysis, the two objections with their replies, and the plain sentence with the second year gap; your message to your relative; and your reflection — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

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.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 13 skills — crediting each pinned sentence to its author and quoting it exactly, putting an argument in standard form and judging its validity without keying soundness, applying the harm principle and the veil of ignorance to new cases, stating the entitlement and history objections at their strongest with replies, and explaining the veil to someone new to philosophy — for comparable time and effort, about 75 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete Part A, Part B, the message to your relative, and one reflection option. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion: for the correction, check each quotation word for word, spelling included, and each attribution against Chapter 13's record; for each reconstruction, underline any added premise and check the form's name against Week 2's list; for the veil, check that it hides facts about each member and not general knowledge; for each objection, ask whether its strongest defender would sign your statement of it and whether the other side would sign your reply; and check that your relative message does not say the veil means ignorance of everything. Write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that names one change you made, the definition or pinned quotation that prompted it, and one question you still have. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The correction, reconstructions, evaluation, message, revision, and reflection must be your own words. Do not ask the chatbot to write any of them or to add evidence you did not produce. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com