THE ETHICS GAME Devon Whetstone Clover Ross THE

THE ETHICS GAME Devon Whetstone & Clover Ross

THE ETHICS GAME SYNOPSIS • Conceptualization of the game • Plot summary • Desired impact of The Ethics Game • Players’ key takeaway

LEARNING OBJECTIVES • Upon completing The Ethics Game experience, players will • Identify the different ethical perspectives presented in the game (Knowledge Domain) • Recognize a superficial alignment of their decisions with one or more of the ethical perspectives presented in the game (Affective Domain) • Increase their value of the complex process of making ethicsbased decisions (Affective Domain)

ETHICS THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW Ethical Theory [Perspective] Description Divine Command [Deontological] Morality is dependent on God; Moral obligation is consistent with God’s commands (Wierenga, 1983) Kantianism [Deontological] Philosophies of Immanuel Kant; “Categorical Imperative” – actions are moral if they are performed as a duty to others; do not perform actions that are self-serving; rules apply to everyone (Banham, 2006) Utilitarianism [Consequentialist] Consequentialist – the result of the action is the standard as to whether it is right or wrong; Best course of action is one with the most “utility”, i. e. that best benefits society (Mill, 2011) Care Ethics [Virtue] Interpersonal relationships are the center of moral actions; consideration others when determining course of action (Gilligan, 2008) Virtue Ethics [Virtue] Based on character traits; A person is considered “good” if they possess traits (i. e. , virtues) that are considered positive; good decisions are made by virtuous people (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016)

RATIONALE FOR USE OF ETHICAL THEORIES IN THE ETHICS GAME • The five theories are currently taught as part of University of Missouri Philosophy curriculum • SME supported our use of the five theories as a good place to start • Literature review resulted in three approaches to normative ethics (i. e. , the study of ethical action) • Each perspective is represented with at least one theory • Content Validity vs. Construct Validity • Iterative process- we are prepared to add more down the road

GAME FORMAT • A player’s decisions drive the plot • Characters as personifications of the ethical theories • ARIS vs. Guidi. GO

USABILITY STUDY • Used Usability. gov resources for planning and execution • Utilized dual procedure method • Remote Testing (Devon) • Think Aloud (Clover) • System Usability Scale administered via Qualtrics • Additional qualitative items • Sample was small enough to conduct item-level analysis • Total Score Analysis

SYSTEM USABILITY SCALE TOTAL SCORES SUS Total Scores Remote User Think Aloud User 1 Think Aloud User 2 Think Aloud User 3 Average SD 70 90 95 60 78. 8 16. 5 Based on guidelines, overall results indicate ”above average” usability

ITEM ANALYSES QU ALI TATI VE DATA SAMPLE I tried several paths in the game. Sometimes they broke and sometimes they didn't. I would make sure any possible decision path one could take works. I would have liked to have been able to choose my character More cues as to the events that occur in the game. Some of the events are hard to follow without a cue (visual or otherwise) Maybe a bit more backstory in the world of these characters. Tighten down the plot holes; provide more information to fuel decisions. Often felt I had incomplete information, and not as intended.

UPDATES TO GAME: POST USABILITY STUDY • Reviewed the script and fixed the ethical decision paths • Fixed plot holes identified by our test users

REFERENCES Banham, G. (2006). Kant's practical philosophy: From critique to doctrine. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gilligan, C. (2008). Moral orientation and moral development. In A. Bailey & C. J. Cuomo (Authors), The feminist philosophy reader. Boston, MA: Mc. Graw-Hill. Hursthouse, R. , & Pettigrove, G. (2016). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed. ), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https: //plato. stanford. edu/archives/win 2016/entries/ethics-virtue/Mill, J. S. (2011). Utilitarianism (C. Heydt, Ed. ). Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview. Wierenga, E. (1983). A defensible divine command theory. Nous, 17(3), 387 -407. doi: 10. 2307/2215256