Epistemic Responsibility Writing Assignment: Operation Gander Sauce

Second Epistemic Responsibility Writing Assignment: Operation Gander Sauce
The Scenario
Suppose that you work for a Texas-based NGO, Texans for Texas (TT), that supports
Democratic political candidates, and that you, personally, support Democratic candidates. Your boss, Alice Briggs, has sent you an email soliciting your ethical advice on an issue of immediate importance.
Ms. Briggs writes that she has read the document drafted by the Texas Republican Party— leaked to the press—which states that the it plans “to use a disinformation campaign to help them win back a dozen state House races in 2020, buying up website domains that look like they belong to Democratic candidates and loading the sites with negative information.”1 She refers to this tactic as “Website Spoofing.” She is worried that such Website Spoofing could significantly hurt the Democrats in the next election.
Ms. Briggs has had a discussion with Matt Osborne about this issue. In that discussion, Mr. Osborne told Ms. Briggs that Texas Democratic candidates will suffer a significant electoral disadvantage if they do not adopt the same unsavory tactics as Republicans. Mr. Osborne went on to say that “when it comes to these kinds of dirty tactics, the situation is going to have to get worse before it gets better, because in our gridlocked system, you won't get regulations against this stuff until both parties are fed up with it.” Ms. Briggs is now convinced that, at least when it comes to Website Spoofing, Mr. Osborne is right. (We’ll call Ms. Briggs’ conclusion the “Pessimistic Conclusion.”)
As a result of all of these considerations, Ms. Briggs is considering using TT funds and staff to implement exactly the same strategy against Texas Republican candidates. To do so, she would hire Matt Osborne as a consultant. He would develop and supervise the project with the assistance of TT staff and funds. The proposed project is called “Gander Sauce.”
Ms. Briggs wants you write a report for her that advises her as to whether it would be ethically appropriate for TT to deploy Gander Sauce. Ultimately, you must conclude one of the following:
i) Implementing Gander Sauce is morally required;
ii) Implementing Gander sauce is not morally required, but it is morally permissible; or
iii) Implementing Gander Sauce is morally prohibited.
1 This quote actually taken from Zelinski, 1.

She wants you to base your analysis of the issue in terms of the relevant duties involved—both Positive Duties and Negative Duties. If two or more duties clash, she wants you to explain which duty (or duties) should prevail, and why they should prevail. She also wants you to consider whether there might be Consequentialist considerations that override a duty (or duties) that would otherwise prevail in this decision.2 Ms. Briggs tells you that, in making your analysis, you are to assume that the Pessimistic Conclusion is true.
Paper Requirements
1. The paper must be 1,250-1,750 words in length.
2. You must submit your work in .doc or .docx format.
3. Your paper should type-written, double-spaced and in Verdana 10-point font. In the upper left-hand corner of the first page, type your full name, “Final Paper,” “Philosophy 2306,” and the course CRN number. Make sure that your name and the page number appear in a footer on every page. Do not make a separate cover page.
4. ThepapermustbewritteninaccordwiththeconventionsofStandardWrittenEnglish.Your paper will be evaluated in part in terms of spelling, grammar, and overall structure.
5. Your paper should follow the traditional essay format consisting of the following.
a. Anopeningparagraphwhereinyoubrieflyexplainwhatyouwilldointhebodyofthe
paper. (Do not load this with a lot of fluff.)
b. The body of the paper wherein you carry out the substance of your analysis (i.e. address the assigned topic).
c. A concluding paragraph wherein you review and draw together what you have done in the body of the paper. (Do not load this with a lot of fluff.)
6. Donotassumethatthereaderofyourpaperisfamiliarwithwhathasbeenreadordiscussed in this class. Think of your reader as an educated person who, although they may be familiar with philosophy in general, is not necessarily knowledgeable of the texts (or topics) you are discussing in the paper. As such, you should make every effort to explain the ideas you discuss and the quotations you use in straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to your reader.
2 When applying Consequentialism, you will have to specify which sorts of things you take to be intrinsically valuable. Just do your best to pick plausible things. I am not expecting you to specify some deep theory of what is intrinsically valuable. Nor am I expecting that you can rigorously quantify what is at stake.

7. You should explain any technical or philosophical term that you use in your paper. At the point in the paper where you define or explain such a term, put that term in bold font. I should be able to immediately locate your explanation or definition of each such term in your paper—i.e. because it is in bold font. Don’t expect me to find each of these items in your paper and give you credit for it if you have not followed this instruction.
8. Use only class materials, and the materials provided specifically for this project, in carrying out this assignment. In other words, do not use outside materials. You should use at least the following materials.
a. CoursematerialsonEpistemicResponsibility
 Clifford’s “The Ethics of Belief” and the outline of that article that your instructor provided would be a good place to start when thinking about what sort of duties might be involved in this scenario.
b. TheStructuresofEgoism&Consequentialism(handout)
 Ideally you will have your class notes to supplement these handouts.
c. Course materials on Deontology
d. ThefollowingfactualsourceswhichtheinstructorhasprovidedasPDFs.
i. Zelinski, Andrea, “Texas Republican Party plans to build phony campaign websites loaded with negative information about Democrats.” Houston Chronicle, 26 November, 2019 Updated: 27 November 27, 2019 10:01 a.m.
 This sources gives the real-world facts for this assignment.
ii. This American Life, Episode 671: Anything Can Be Anything, Act Two: The Red Menace Hits the Crimson Tide (transcript). (You may also listen to the original podcast online at:
https://www(dot)thisamericanlife(dot)org/671/anything-can-be-anything/act-two-5
 Treat this source as providing only a general context in terms of introducing Matt Osborne and as providing the background that lead him to make the statement attributed to him in the instructions. Beyond that, don’t get hung up on the facts of this source except to the extent that it bears upon the specific factual scenario that you are to deal with as specified in these instructions.
Second Epistemic Responsibility Writing Assignment v5.0
Page 3 of 4
—For purposes of this assignment, assume that the facts given in (i) and (ii) above are correct. Do not try to argue that the facts are wrong. That is not what this assignment is about.
9. Youmustusedirectquotationsfromthereadingsassignedinclassandthesourcesprovided specifically for this assignment to support your claims. Your instructor will provide information on the correct citation form in a separate document.
10.There may be more important issues than can be handled within the compass of a a paper of this length. Just use your judgment in selecting the most important things to talk about.
11.Your job is to show mastery of the relevant concepts and the ability to apply them in a thoughtful and insightful analysis. Your grade depends on the quality of your analysis, not whether you ultimately conclude that it is ethically required, permissible, or impermissible that TT implement Gander Sauce. In other words, I am interested in how you make your case, not which side of the issue you come down on. However, you must ultimately come down on one side or another.
12.You are responsible for ensuring that your paper is free of plagiarism and that you do not engage in any “Scholastic Dishonesty.” Please see the syllabus for the definition of “plagiarism” and “Scholastic Dishonesty.”
Submission