Chapter 8 Exercises

Conceptual Exercises

Exercise 1: Rights Genealogy (30 minutes)

Pick three rights you believe strongly in — perhaps privacy, free expression, bodily autonomy, or the right to a fair trial. For each right, write one paragraph explaining where you think it comes from using the framework that seems most compelling to you:

• Is it grounded in human nature or reason (natural law / Kantian)?
• Does it arise from a hypothetical agreement rational people would make (social contract)?
• Is it purely a legal fact (positivism)?

Then ask: does your choice of foundation change anything about how secure that right is? What happens to it if the law changes?

Exercise 2: Trolley Problems and Rule-Breaking

The standard trolley problem presents a conflict between consequentialist intuitions (save five, sacrifice one) and deontological ones (you may not use a person as a means). But the following variants isolate specific features. For each, state what you think the right action is and which framework best justifies it.

Variant A — The Stolen Bridge You're driving to a hospital with a patient having a heart attack. The bridge is closed. There's a second route, but it goes through private property owned by someone who has explicitly said trespassers will be prosecuted. Do you trespass?

Variant B — The Lying Doctor A patient in acute psychological distress asks you directly, "Am I dying?" You know that the honest answer — yes — is likely to trigger a crisis that will make her condition significantly worse. Kant says lying is always wrong. What do you say?

Variant C — The Confidential Threat A therapist's patient reveals in session that he is planning to harm a specific third party. The therapist has a legal duty to warn (the Tarasoff case). But the patient hasn't acted yet, and the therapist is uncertain whether the threat is serious. The patient will certainly end therapy — and lose his only professional support — if the therapist reports. What should the therapist do? What rights are in conflict?

Variant D — The Protest A small group decides to block a major highway to draw attention to a policy they believe is unjust. Using MLK's four criteria, evaluate whether their action constitutes legitimate civil disobedience or mere disruption.

Exercise 3: Mapping the Rights Conflict (20 minutes)

Choose any one of the following contemporary debates. On a blank page, map the rights at stake:

• Social media content moderation (deplatforming)
• Vaccine mandates for school attendance
• Government access to encrypted communications
• Mandatory reporting laws (teachers required to report suspected abuse)

For each debate you choose:

1. Name the rights on each side (use specific terminology from this chapter)
2. Identify which philosophical tradition most strongly supports each side
3. State which consideration you find most compelling and why
4. Identify the strongest objection to your position

Exercise 4: Journaling — The Time You Didn't Act

Set a timer for 20 minutes. Write freely in response to this prompt:

Write about a time when you knew something was wrong but didn't act. It might have been something large — a serious injustice you witnessed — or something small — a comment you should have challenged, a situation you walked past. What stopped you? Was it fear? Uncertainty about whether it was your place? A diffusion of responsibility ("someone else will handle it")? Social pressure? Looking back, what would you have needed — internally or externally — to act differently?

This is not an exercise in self-condemnation. It's an exercise in moral self-understanding. The point is not to beat yourself up but to identify what actually governs your behavior in morally charged situations — and whether that matches what you want to govern your behavior.

Exercise 5: The Civil Disobedience Test

Apply MLK's four criteria to three historical or contemporary cases. For each, assess whether the criteria are met and what conclusion follows.

Cases: 1. Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus (1955) 2. Edward Snowden leaking NSA surveillance documents (2013) 3. Environmental protesters gluing themselves to roads or artworks

For each case, answer: - Was the law clearly unjust? (And how clearly?) - Had legal remedies been exhausted? - Was the action open and nonviolent? - Did the actors accept (or attempt to accept) legal consequences? - What is your overall verdict on the legitimacy of the disobedience?

Note: there is not one "right" answer to the Snowden case, and the textbook does not endorse one. The exercise is to apply the framework rigorously and see where it leads you.

Application Exercises

Exercise 6: The Whistleblower Decision Tree

You work in a medium-sized company and have discovered that your department has been falsifying quality control records on a product component. You're not certain it's dangerous, but you're not certain it's safe either. You have a family to support.

Apply DeGeorge's whistleblowing framework:

1. How serious is the potential harm?
2. How clearly established is the wrongdoing?
3. What internal channels exist, and have you tried them?
4. Do you have evidence?
5. Is going public likely to actually prevent harm?

Write a one-page memo — as if to yourself — arguing for the course of action you think is most justified. Then write a second paragraph arguing for the strongest opposing position.

Exercise 7: Rights Across Traditions — A Comparison Table

Complete the following table using concepts from the chapter:

Synthesis Exercise

Exercise 8: Your Rights Manifesto

As a contribution to the Progressive Project, write a short personal "rights manifesto" (1–2 pages) that:

1. States two or three rights you believe are truly non-negotiable for you
2. Explains why you believe they're non-negotiable (which philosophical tradition grounds them?)
3. Identifies one genuine tension between your stated rights and the rights of others
4. Addresses, honestly, under what circumstances — if any — you would engage in civil disobedience

This is not a political document. It's a philosophical self-examination. The goal is honest reflection, not a performance of your values.