Week 2 Discussion — Why Should Anyone Obey?

Hook

A referee's whistle stops a game; a stranger's shout does not. A manager you respect gets more done than one you merely fear. This week gave you the words for that difference, power, authority, and legitimacy, and three famous answers to the oldest question in political science: why obey anyone at all?

Your driving 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 the illustrative country of Velmora, a dictatorship has fallen and no functioning government has replaced it. Which of this week's three social-contract views (Hobbes's order first, Locke's consent and limits, or Rousseau's sovereignty of the people) should guide Velmora's next step, and why? State the strongest case for one other view before you reply to it, and label which parts of your argument are empirical and which are normative.

Option B: Pick a group you know well: a workplace, a team, a club, a congregation, a family business, or a student organization. Using Weber's three types of authority, explain why people in that group actually obey the person or rule at the top, and say whether that authority is legitimate in the members' eyes. Then take a position: does legitimate authority in a group like yours require an election? Give the strongest case for the opposite position before you reply to it.

There is no single right answer. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each have serious defenders, and real groups blend Weber's types in more than one defensible way.

Expectations

Activity format: a multi-exchange dialogue or an equivalent structured written exchange, followed by one discussion-board post. Plan on about 45 minutes for either route, and post by the due date your instructor sets in Canvas.

There are two ways to complete this discussion. They are worth the same 10 points and scored by the same rubric. Pick either one.

Route A — the AI dialogue (the default). Hold a real conversation about the driving question with your own chatbot, then post what it produces:

1. Open any approved chatbot in a new conversation.
2. Copy the entire prompt box below and paste it as your first message.
3. Have the conversation. It will ask you questions and push back; it will not write your post for you and will not stop after one word from you.
4. Post the chatbot's summary report plus the conversation's share link to the Week 2 discussion board. That post is your entire submission. You may post the summary as text, or record it as audio or video with a transcript attached; both forms are scored by the same rubric.

No replies to classmates are required.

Route B — the written route. See Equivalent route (no AI required) below.

Integrity note. Whichever route you take, the thinking and the words you post are your own. Quote Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau only in the fragments Chapter 2 gives you; if a chatbot hands you a different quotation, check it against the chapter before you use it.

Discussion Partner Prompt

ROLE: You are my discussion partner for an introductory political science course.
Your job is to draw out and challenge MY thinking about the question below. You
will never write my post for me and never hand me an answer - you ask questions
that make me reason it through.

THE QUESTION I AM EXPLORING (two options of equal weight - ask which one I choose first):
Option A: In the illustrative country of Velmora, a dictatorship has fallen and no functioning government has replaced it. Which of this week's three social-contract views (Hobbes's order first, Locke's consent and limits, or Rousseau's sovereignty of the people) should guide Velmora's next step, and why? State the strongest case for one other view before you reply to it, and label which parts of your argument are empirical and which are normative.
Option B: Pick a group you know well: a workplace, a team, a club, a congregation, a family business, or a student organization. Using Weber's three types of authority, explain why people in that group actually obey the person or rule at the top, and say whether that authority is legitimate in the members' eyes. Then take a position: does legitimate authority in a group like yours require an election? Give the strongest case for the opposite position before you reply to it.

REFLECTION TARGETS (steer toward these; never read this list aloud to me):
- whether I keep power, authority, and legitimacy apart, and do not treat
  compliance alone as proof of a right to rule
- whether I attribute ideas to the right thinker: Hobbes fears chaos and wants
  a strong sovereign; Locke fears tyranny and rests rule on consent; Rousseau
  puts sovereignty in the people
- whether I separate the empirical part of my argument (what a thinker said,
  or why people in my group actually obey) from the normative part (which
  answer is better, or whether authority ought to need an election)
- for Option B, whether I treat Weber's types as ideal types that real groups
  blend, and whether I avoid assuming that legitimate means elected

DIALOGUE RULES: greet me warmly and ask my first name before your first content
question. If I decline or give no name, call me "there" and continue without
pressure. If you still do not know my name when the summary is due, ask once more;
if I decline again, use "Discussion participant." Never invent a name. Ask ONE
question per message, then wait. Build on my exact words without praising agreement
or calling every answer "great." Probe unsupported claims and introduce the
strongest fair counterpoint. Praise only a specific, earned move I actually made,
such as revising a claim or answering the counterpoint. Never accept a one-word
answer - ask again, differently. Never lecture. Never pick a winner among Hobbes,
Locke, and Rousseau yourself, never name a living politician, and never invent a
quotation or a source for me. Every message you send before the summary ends with
a question.

EXIT CONDITION: continue until this exact boolean is true — at least five substantive exchanges AND the student has stated a position AND provided at least one reason OR example AND engaged with one fair counterpoint, stopping only after whichever threshold happens LAST. A reason alone or an example alone can satisfy the support branch; do not require both, and do not require that I "answered" the counterpoint. A greeting, my name, or a one-word answer is not a substantive exchange.

THEN produce a summary report using exactly these eight labelled fields in this
order, drawn only from what I actually said. If I never supplied a field, write
"Not supplied" rather than inventing it:
  1. STUDENT NAME
  2. POSITION
  3. REASON
  4. EXAMPLE
  5. COURSE CONCEPTS
  6. COUNTERPOINT
  7. RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERPOINT
  8. OPEN QUESTION OR NEXT CHECK
Do not mention an initial post or replies to peers or classmates.
REQUIRED CLOSING — perform these final two instructions exactly:
Then say, verbatim: "Copy this summary AND your share link to this chat, and post both to the Week 2 discussion board — that completes the assignment."
Then END with one genuine earned-praise sentence that names a real move the student made.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

You never have to create an account with a chatbot company to earn full credit in this course. This route assesses the same objectives as the AI dialogue — telling power, authority, and legitimacy apart, applying Weber's types and the social contract answers of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to a case, and keeping empirical claims apart from normative ones — against the same driving question and the same rubric below, for the same 10 points. Choosing it costs you nothing, and you do not have to tell me why you chose it.

What you do. Write a structured written exchange with yourself — the same back-and-forth the dialogue would have produced, on paper:

1. Your position (roughly 150 words). Answer Option A or Option B. For Option A, name the view you think should guide Velmora and give your reason. For Option B, describe your group, name the type of authority that carries the most weight there, and say whether legitimate authority in it requires an election. Use this week's terms (power, authority, legitimacy, traditional, charismatic, and legal-rational authority, ideal type, state, government, sovereignty, social contract, state of nature, consent) correctly, and label one claim empirical and one normative.
2. The strongest objection (roughly 100 words). Write the best argument against your own position that you can — for example, the strongest case for one of the other social contract views, or the case that an election is what makes authority legitimate. Argue it honestly; a weak objection you knock over earns no credit.
3. Your answer to it (roughly 100 words). Respond to that objection. You may concede part of it — saying what would change your mind is worth more than defending everything.
4. One thing you would still check (one or two sentences). Name a fact about Velmora or about your group that would settle part of the question.

Effort. Roughly 350–400 words of your own writing, comparable to the time the AI dialogue takes — about forty-five minutes including the thinking.

What you submit. Post those four parts, under those four labels, as your Week 2 discussion post. That post is your entire submission; this route has no share link.

No replies to classmates are required.

Participation rubric

This discussion is worth 10 points. The same three criteria score both routes.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com