Play game
Sweet Justice's itch.io pageResults
| Criteria | Rank | Score* | Raw Score |
| Runner-up | #1 | n/a | n/a |
| Popular winner | #1 | 5.000 | 5.000 |
Ranked from 1 rating. Score is adjusted from raw score by the median number of ratings per game in the jam.
Judge feedback
Judge feedback is anonymous.
- On first glance, I considered Sweet Justice an entertaining classroom activity to pair with readings from Rawls, but doubted whether it could provide any significant insights into the primary source material, especially considering the caricature-like personalities of “Needy Ned,” “Entitled Eric,” and the rest. I supposed that such caricatures might entertain students temporarily without challenging them to think deeply about the most charitable interpretations of Rawls’ or others’ theories of justice. On a closer reading of the game (especially the “Background, Thoughts, and Motivations” document), Sweet Justice is revealed to function not strictly as an expository tool, but as a critical work of procedural rhetoric aiming to challenge all theories of justice as “flawed” (“Background, Thoughts, and Motivations” p. 2). The game’s characters may not capture all the nuance of their various implicitly held theories of justice (how could they?), but the critical project is still fair to its opposition in the acknowledgement of a “game breaking bug” (p. 4) allowing players to resolve the candied conflict from which the game derives its tension. Sweet Justice functions simultaneously as a re-creation and a critique of Rawls’ theory and its rivals. Like the students who expected Prof. Andersson to reveal “the correct distribution” (p. 3) at a playtest's conclusion, I also leave this game with an unsatisfied curiosity about the author’s attitudes with respect to justice: if all theories are flawed, then how are we to go about choosing one social order over another? But this is just how Sweet Justice invites players to dive deeper into political philosophy for themselves. I ultimately voted for Sweet Justice on account of the way its philosophical and artistic/interactive elements mutually illuminate one another, per the game jam’s FAQ on what is meant by “critical-creative.” As a game, its “character roll” bears the distinct mark of its philosophical source, and as a philosophical work it is shaped by the co-creative dynamism characteristic of the relationship between game, game designer, and game player.
What work(s) of philosophy does your piece take as its primary source(s)?
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice.
Please tell us about your piece.
Most of us believe that we have a good understanding of what makes a
particular matter just or fair. We may find that an equal distribution of a
certain good is just, or that a distribution should should first and foremost
prioritize those who are worst-off, or that distributions should respect prop-
erty rights even if it undermines those who are in need. We may believe
that some people deserve more than others because they are productive,
creative, and ambitious. We may also believe that some people who are
living in misery do not deserve the bad luck they have been handed.
The problem with justice is that we may believe all of the above
without realizing that most of the claims stand in stark contrast to each
other. This game invites you to unveil your intuitions about justice in an
interactive fashion. It forces you to make choices under pressure and witness
the effects of your decisions. It is intended to be an engaging and (hopefully)
fun learning experience about one of the most difficult questions in political
philosophy: what makes a distribution just?
What other sources have you used in your piece?
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gZeJxIpRs6xuB4LscHen5eLyc9KZN2S_Qk_LJFVjwhk/edit?usp=sharing
Leave a comment
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Comments
This is a neat game! It probably makes students more forthcoming about their real beliefs concerning resource distributions. I like the setup with 4 different distribution characters, even if there is a larger pool of characters from which students can choose or can be assigned by rolling. Looking forward to hearing what further distributions students come up with as the game is played more.
Thank you! Yes, the resulting distributions were quite surprising, both in their differences and how some went all-in capitalism mode. However, I also think it's important to consider that the students will play the game with different mindsets and intentions. Some will treat it first and foremost as a game with a win condition, meaning that they will not play the game primarily to test / unveil their "true" intuitions. Others will do the opposite and focus more on discussing the intuitions that come in play during the different phases. And some will of course just try to make sense of what the hell is going on...
This looks like a fun alternative to classroom debates about whose intuitions are more justifiable (not that there's anything wrong with such debates!). I especially appreciate how the "character roll" to some extent gamifies Rawls' veil of ignorance. The explicit association of game characters with different theories (Nozick's, Parfit's, etc.) in your background document was also helpful.
Beyond Rawls' veil of ignorance and initial premises, are you generally able to pair this game with an additional discussion of the more specific political implications Rawls draws and the practical conclusions he arrives at? I would be curious to see whether playing the game might influence students to agree or disagree with Rawls' inferences.
Thank you for the kind words! I implemented the "character roll" as a recurring feature (it only happened once in the first version of the game) after I had some colleagues read the instruction manual and give me feedback. So, admittedly I cannot take full credit for that improvement :)
The game was played after the students have had two lectures on distributive justice, the first one on Rawls and Nozick and the second one on desert, luck egalitarianism and the value of equality. By that time, I think the students were quite indecisive on which theory they sympathized with, so I thought it would be a good idea for them to test the theories "in practice" to help them get, if not a better then a different, understanding of the implications of the distributional patterns / procedures of the theories presented to them.
My impression is that most students in Sweden are quite sympathetic to Rawls' theory since the Swedish "distributional model" is quite similar to many ideas presented in ToJ. However, to my surprise, as soon as the students played the game, most of them seemed to be more desertist or Nozickean in their thinking.
Hi, there! For some reason, I'm unable to generate a link for you to be able to vote in the competition. I see your URL is a bit different from others' -- it has an itch.io/profile/username format instead of a username.itch.io format. Could I ask you to modify your account registration in such a way that it takes the username.itch.io format? I believe you can do so if you go to your account settings and choose a unique URL for your profile. If this isn't possible for whatever reason, we can find another solution. :)
Regardless, here's the voting information:
Please give only one 5-star rating to a single project -- that is, please vote only once, for your very favorite project, that isn't your own. This is to ensure that the popular winner doesn't go to the project that happens to be rated the most times.
Voting will close when the counter on the jam page reaches zero, at 23:59/11:59PM CET/GMT+1 on December 12th, 2022! Your vote will not be made public until the full results for the competition are announced on December 15th on the jam page and on the jam community board.
While you can only vote for one submission, please leave as many comments as you like on all the submissions that strike your fancy! This goes for anyone who entered the jam or who stumbles upon it on the site, even if they didn't submit anything or can't vote! It'd be wonderful to get some good discussions going. If you're not sure where to start with evaluating projects, I've prepared a list of questions to ask yourself as you explore and reflect upon your experiences with each one here. I hope they're helpful to you!
As always, if you have any questions, please either reply to this message or post on the jam's FAQ here. Thank you!
Hmm.. When I go into my account settings, it says that my public URL is https://alexandeerandersson.itch.io (but after I click it, it turns into the /profile/username format). Should I just change my profile name, then? Because I can't seem to get a new URL if I type in my current profile name.
Oh, that's so strange! Would you mind emailing me a screenshot of what your settings' profile page looks like, if you're comfortable doing so?
Sure! Should I send it to the critcreaphil-gmail account?
Yes, thank you so much!
Hi, again! Your voting link is ready -- just click here. Let me know if you have any issues with it!
Hi, Alexander! Would you mind setting the sources document you've linked to "public?" Currently, it's inaccessible unless you're logged into a Google account. Thank you!
Sure! You should be able to access it now.