Week 13 Discussion — Would You Plug In, and Did You Ever Agree? — Traditional alternative (no AI)

Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.

Hook

You have probably followed rules you never signed up for, and you have probably wondered whether a life that only felt good would be enough. This week's thinkers ask what gives a rule-maker the right to rule, and Robert Nozick's experience machine asks whether pleasure is all that matters.

Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.

Option A: In Robert Nozick's experience machine, you could plug into a machine that gives you any experiences you want for the rest of your life, while you believe it is all real. Would you plug in, and what does your answer show about whether pleasure is all that matters? Take a position, say whether your answer supports or challenges Bentham's claim that pain and pleasure are our two sovereign masters, and test your view against one pleasure in your own life that you would not want to have only as an experience.

Option B: Think of one group you belong to, such as a team, a workplace, a club, or a household, whose rules you never openly agreed to. Do those rules bind you because you consent to them without words, by staying and accepting what the group provides, or does the consent objection show that the consent is a fiction? Take a position, say which account of authority from this week fits your group best, and test your view against one rule in that group you would not have chosen.

There is no single right answer. Careful thinkers still disagree about whether pleasant experience is all that makes a life go well, and about whether consent can ground the authority of rules most of us never chose. Pick the option you actually care about, and tell us your reasoning.

Expectations

Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.

Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):

• Say which option you chose.
• For Option A, say whether you would plug into the experience machine, what your answer shows about whether pleasure is all that matters, and whether it supports or challenges Bentham, and test your view on one pleasure of your own; for Option B, say whether the rules of your group bind you through consent without words or whether the consent objection wins, name the account of authority that fits best, and test your view on one rule you would not have chosen.
• Use at least two of this week's terms (legitimacy, social contract theory, consent, the consent objection, natural rights, the general will, the experience machine) correctly.
• State the view you reject in its strongest form, give your reason, and say what would change your mind.
• Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
• Keep any example you give away from hot-button topics, real current controversies, and current policy questions, and never name a real person in a case.

Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):

• Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
• A substantive reply does more than agree: state the strongest version of the poster's view in your own words, ask whether their own example really fits the case they tie it to, or offer a variation that pulls the other way. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.

What a strong post looks like:

I chose Option B. My group is the shared house I rent a room in, and I never agreed to its rule that the kitchen closes at eleven. The consent objection says I cannot be bound by a promise I never made, and I grant that I never said yes out loud. But I stayed, I use the kitchen every day, and I would leave if the rules were truly unfair, so I think I consent without words, as Locke's defenders reply. What would change my mind is a case where leaving was not a real option, because then staying would not show agreement.

Notice how it takes a position, states the other side at its strongest, ties the reason to consent and the consent objection as the course defines them, and says what would change the writer's mind. That is the bar.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.

Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com