Game-Based Learning for Hypothetical Scenarios in Political Philosophy
Author: Zlata Božac
Introduction
Political philosophy has long relied on hypothetical situations and thought experiments to explore abstract normative concepts such as justice, equality, liberty, legitimacy, and more. Canonical examples like the Trolley Problem, State of Nature, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, or Rawls’s Original Position are designed to elicit intuitive judgments and explore the boundaries of moral reasoning. At first glance, students, especially those navigating contexts marked by lived experiences of injustice, often find these scenarios alienating. How, they ask, can simplified, artificial thought experiments illuminate the messy realities of political oppression or systemic inequality?
This skepticism is understandable. The circumstances of such hypotheticals, especially when socially loaded, often impose cognitive burdens on learners. Students are expected to respond to complex, unfamiliar situations using their instinctive, experience-based knowledge (Mach, 1897, as cited in Brown & Fehige, 2023). These “outlandish” scenarios ask them to make difficult decisions, suspend disbelief, and bracket personal or cultural commitments – all while translating their reactions into philosophical analysis.
This skepticism becomes even more pronounced when the course is taken not by philosophy majors, but by students from entirely different disciplines. In the context of a liberal arts college, for example, students studying biology or engineering might enroll to fulfill a distribution requirement, with little prior exposure to philosophical reasoning. For these students, the abstract nature of the material, coupled with unfamiliar methods of argumentation, can make the course feel doubly foreign in both content and in form. Teaching political philosophy across such diverse intellectual and experiential backgrounds poses a unique challenge: how to make abstract thought experiments feel both accessible and meaningful.
When approached thoughtfully, these hypotheticals can serve as powerful learning tools. According to Popper (1959), thought experiments can be heuristic (illustrating a theory), apologetic (supporting a theory), or critical (undermining one). Each type plays a role in philosophical inquiry. The classroom becomes a space where students can explore each kind through imaginative reasoning and structured reflection. Literary fiction and narrative thought experiments, too, help build mental models that allow learners to discover new things about the world – even through fictional constructs (Brown & Fehige, 2023). When used strategically, these devices allow students to identify and set aside their own biases, better understand concepts like justice, fairness, and equality, and reflect on political morality from a more critical distance.
This open educational resource explores the use of simulations and gameplay as pedagogical tools to help students engage more deeply with philosophical hypotheticals. By transforming abstract thought experiments into structured classroom activities, students don’t just imagine these scenarios, but they live through them. They must make difficult decisions, negotiate power dynamics, suffer consequences, and reflect on their own intuitions. These simulations provide what no theoretical discussion can: a first-hand, affective encounter with the moral and conceptual stakes involved.
For example, the courses in (normative) political philosophy often begin with a basic premise – that justice, at its core, involves determining “who gets what”, which immediately plunges students into thinking in terms of trade-offs. A modified Trolley Problem invites them to consider utilitarian calculations, deontological constraints, and the often-unspoken assumptions about whose lives matter. Later, scenarios like the Rawlsian Original Position or the Hobbesian State of Nature ask them to design fair systems or struggle for survival. Initially puzzled by the relevance of such artificially constructed dilemmas, students gradually come to see their pedagogical power. Simulating these situations gives them the opportunity to tease out conceptual distinctions between equality and equity, fairness and justice, cooperation and legitimacy.
Importantly, these simulations are not stand-alone games. They are embedded in a sequence of learning activities, including fiction readings and reflective writing assignments, that allow students to trace recurring themes across texts, simulations, and their own ethical commitments. Students are asked to reflect on several games or class activities, and also on pieces of fiction. These dual reflections help them grasp how abstract hypotheticals and narrative worlds each offer different but complementary tools for ethical inquiry.
Over time, the impact of these simulations becomes visible. Students begin to use the language of the games effortlessly, referring back to key decisions or dynamics long after the activity has ended. Properly sequenced, these simulations build on each other, enabling students to re-evaluate past choices in light of new theories and experiences. This recursive process helps deepen their conceptual understanding. They begin to appreciate how slight changes in scenario design radically shift what feels like a “just” decision. They come to realize how outcomes are shaped not only by values or beliefs but by the institutional and procedural structures in which choices are embedded.
In this sense, simulations democratize both knowledge and error. All students participate in creating meaning; all can make decisions and reflect on their implications. The risk of being “wrong” becomes a philosophical opportunity rather than a classroom liability. The discomfort of making tough moral calls or betraying one's ideals under pressure becomes the starting point for deeper insight.
This method aligns with the broader goals of inclusive, equity-centered, and participatory pedagogy. Simulations invite students from diverse backgrounds to bring their intuitive and lived knowledge into philosophical discourse, while also giving them tools to critically analyze that knowledge. They allow students to feel the stakes of justice, not just define it. And they equip them with the reflective habits essential to democratic participation: empathy, deliberation, conceptual clarity, and moral imagination.
This resource offers an overview of two specific simulations and associated classroom strategies and materials – in particular, those exploring the hypothetical state of nature as envisioned by two philosophers – Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It is intended for instructors, especially early-career educators or those teaching in diverse or global classrooms, who want to make political philosophy more engaging, experiential, and socially resonant.
This skepticism is understandable. The circumstances of such hypotheticals, especially when socially loaded, often impose cognitive burdens on learners. Students are expected to respond to complex, unfamiliar situations using their instinctive, experience-based knowledge (Mach, 1897, as cited in Brown & Fehige, 2023). These “outlandish” scenarios ask them to make difficult decisions, suspend disbelief, and bracket personal or cultural commitments – all while translating their reactions into philosophical analysis.
This skepticism becomes even more pronounced when the course is taken not by philosophy majors, but by students from entirely different disciplines. In the context of a liberal arts college, for example, students studying biology or engineering might enroll to fulfill a distribution requirement, with little prior exposure to philosophical reasoning. For these students, the abstract nature of the material, coupled with unfamiliar methods of argumentation, can make the course feel doubly foreign in both content and in form. Teaching political philosophy across such diverse intellectual and experiential backgrounds poses a unique challenge: how to make abstract thought experiments feel both accessible and meaningful.
When approached thoughtfully, these hypotheticals can serve as powerful learning tools. According to Popper (1959), thought experiments can be heuristic (illustrating a theory), apologetic (supporting a theory), or critical (undermining one). Each type plays a role in philosophical inquiry. The classroom becomes a space where students can explore each kind through imaginative reasoning and structured reflection. Literary fiction and narrative thought experiments, too, help build mental models that allow learners to discover new things about the world – even through fictional constructs (Brown & Fehige, 2023). When used strategically, these devices allow students to identify and set aside their own biases, better understand concepts like justice, fairness, and equality, and reflect on political morality from a more critical distance.
This open educational resource explores the use of simulations and gameplay as pedagogical tools to help students engage more deeply with philosophical hypotheticals. By transforming abstract thought experiments into structured classroom activities, students don’t just imagine these scenarios, but they live through them. They must make difficult decisions, negotiate power dynamics, suffer consequences, and reflect on their own intuitions. These simulations provide what no theoretical discussion can: a first-hand, affective encounter with the moral and conceptual stakes involved.
For example, the courses in (normative) political philosophy often begin with a basic premise – that justice, at its core, involves determining “who gets what”, which immediately plunges students into thinking in terms of trade-offs. A modified Trolley Problem invites them to consider utilitarian calculations, deontological constraints, and the often-unspoken assumptions about whose lives matter. Later, scenarios like the Rawlsian Original Position or the Hobbesian State of Nature ask them to design fair systems or struggle for survival. Initially puzzled by the relevance of such artificially constructed dilemmas, students gradually come to see their pedagogical power. Simulating these situations gives them the opportunity to tease out conceptual distinctions between equality and equity, fairness and justice, cooperation and legitimacy.
Importantly, these simulations are not stand-alone games. They are embedded in a sequence of learning activities, including fiction readings and reflective writing assignments, that allow students to trace recurring themes across texts, simulations, and their own ethical commitments. Students are asked to reflect on several games or class activities, and also on pieces of fiction. These dual reflections help them grasp how abstract hypotheticals and narrative worlds each offer different but complementary tools for ethical inquiry.
Over time, the impact of these simulations becomes visible. Students begin to use the language of the games effortlessly, referring back to key decisions or dynamics long after the activity has ended. Properly sequenced, these simulations build on each other, enabling students to re-evaluate past choices in light of new theories and experiences. This recursive process helps deepen their conceptual understanding. They begin to appreciate how slight changes in scenario design radically shift what feels like a “just” decision. They come to realize how outcomes are shaped not only by values or beliefs but by the institutional and procedural structures in which choices are embedded.
In this sense, simulations democratize both knowledge and error. All students participate in creating meaning; all can make decisions and reflect on their implications. The risk of being “wrong” becomes a philosophical opportunity rather than a classroom liability. The discomfort of making tough moral calls or betraying one's ideals under pressure becomes the starting point for deeper insight.
This method aligns with the broader goals of inclusive, equity-centered, and participatory pedagogy. Simulations invite students from diverse backgrounds to bring their intuitive and lived knowledge into philosophical discourse, while also giving them tools to critically analyze that knowledge. They allow students to feel the stakes of justice, not just define it. And they equip them with the reflective habits essential to democratic participation: empathy, deliberation, conceptual clarity, and moral imagination.
This resource offers an overview of two specific simulations and associated classroom strategies and materials – in particular, those exploring the hypothetical state of nature as envisioned by two philosophers – Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It is intended for instructors, especially early-career educators or those teaching in diverse or global classrooms, who want to make political philosophy more engaging, experiential, and socially resonant.
How political philosophy is taught: common approaches and techniques
A common starting point in teaching political philosophy is to ask a broad and foundational question: Why do we obey political authority? or, echoing Plato’s Republic, What is justice, and why should we be just? From these central questions, students are gradually introduced to more specific debates and theorists – such as Hobbes, Locke, Rawls, or Nozick – who offer competing visions of the political and moral world. There are several well-established pedagogical approaches that are usually used to engage students with abstract reasoning and hypothetical scenarios.
One of the most central and widely used methods is the Socratic method and guided discussion. Here, the instructor leads with open-ended questions designed to challenge students’ assumptions and clarify their reasoning. Rather than providing answers, the teacher invites students to examine their views, respond to counterexamples, and refine their thinking in real time. This method is especially effective for working through thought experiments –scenarios like the State of Nature or the Veil of Ignorance – that invite multiple plausible interpretations and moral intuitions. The aim is not to reach consensus, but to deepen the students’ ability to reason critically, examine different facets of the dilemma or a problem posed by the experiment, and articulate a coherent position of their own.
Close reading and textual analysis is another foundational technique. Students engage directly with primary philosophical texts, often line by line, and are asked to interpret difficult passages, clarify an author’s argument, and assess its internal coherence. This method encourages students to grapple directly with the language and structure of philosophical argumentation. It is particularly important in a field where the smallest textual nuance can change the stakes of a claim. Since many of these texts are challenging, instructors often combine close reading with scaffolding strategies – providing guiding questions or summaries to help students stay oriented.
To support comprehension and structure abstract content, many instructors incorporate whiteboard modeling and concept mapping. This technique involves visually diagramming the logical connections between concepts, mapping out contrasting views (e.g., Rawls vs. Nozick), or laying out the decision structure of a thought experiment (e.g., in various versions of the Trolley Problem). This method invites active student participation in collaboratively drawing conceptual maps and teasing out the differences and comparing the stakes of different iterations of a scenario. By externalizing the architecture of an argument, students can better follow complex debates and understand how ideas interrelate, which also helps to organize students’ thinking about complex philosophical questions and dilemmas.
Another widely used strategy is case-based learning, where students are asked to apply theoretical frameworks to specific scenarios. These might be entirely hypothetical, like variants of the Trolley Problem or prisoners’ dilemmas; or real-world examples that reflect moral or political tensions, such as debates on surveillance, taxation, or civil disobedience. This method helps students see the stakes of abstract ideas and test the limits of theories when applied to novel or emotionally charged situations.
Finally, structured debates are often used to develop argumentative and rhetorical skills. Students are assigned opposing sides of a question (e.g., utilitarianism vs. deontology, or democracy vs. technocracy) and asked to construct a persuasive case using both theoretical and intuitive support. This format pushes students to inhabit viewpoints they may not hold, fostering deeper engagement and understanding of alternative positions.
In this model of teaching, instruction frequently emphasizes thesis-driven writing. Students are asked not only to understand and summarize complex arguments but to respond to them with their own evaluative claims. For instance, they may be prompted to develop a provisional thesis – such as “Hobbes’ argument against popular participation in government is unconvincing because it fails to adequately address A, B, and C” – and then guided through a structured process of identifying the specific claims Hobbes makes, evaluating their plausibility, anticipating counterarguments, and situating their critique within a broader philosophical dialogue (University of Washington, n.d.). This fosters clarity and precision, especially in distinguishing between empirical disagreements and conceptual objections.
Taken together, these methods have long shaped the way political philosophy is taught in higher education. They offer varied ways for students to engage with big, often abstract questions, and can be adapted to suit different learning styles and academic backgrounds. In many classrooms, these approaches help students, especially those without prior exposure to philosophy, begin to find their voice in analyzing complex arguments and imagining alternative possibilities.
At the same time, their effectiveness can depend heavily on context. For example, methods like open debate or hypothetical reasoning may initially feel outlandish or even frustrating to students who are more familiar with factual or technical disciplines, or who come from educational systems where questioning foundational texts is not encouraged. In classrooms where students are directly affected by political instability or injustice, the use of highly abstract or contrived scenarios can seem disconnected from lived experience – or worse, appear to trivialize it. Similarly, close reading of canonical Western texts might require reframing to avoid reproducing narrow or exclusionary understandings of justice and political legitimacy. At times, this may also involve inviting students to consider who the text was originally written for, and to reflect on their own relationship to that intended audience. Do they see themselves as part of it – or outside of it? If the latter, how might the ideas or frameworks offered still be made relevant or useful in their context? And if not directly applicable, how might they be reinterpreted, challenged, or adapted to speak to different political or moral realities?
Rather than abandoning these methods, the challenge is often to thoughtfully adapt and sequence them: to make space for discomfort and resistance, to acknowledge what might not translate across cultures or disciplines, and to ensure students feel invited into the conversation rather than evaluated by it. With careful attention, these classical approaches can still offer meaningful entry points into some of the most pressing questions of political life –even, and perhaps especially, in places where such questions are not abstract at all.
One of the most central and widely used methods is the Socratic method and guided discussion. Here, the instructor leads with open-ended questions designed to challenge students’ assumptions and clarify their reasoning. Rather than providing answers, the teacher invites students to examine their views, respond to counterexamples, and refine their thinking in real time. This method is especially effective for working through thought experiments –scenarios like the State of Nature or the Veil of Ignorance – that invite multiple plausible interpretations and moral intuitions. The aim is not to reach consensus, but to deepen the students’ ability to reason critically, examine different facets of the dilemma or a problem posed by the experiment, and articulate a coherent position of their own.
Close reading and textual analysis is another foundational technique. Students engage directly with primary philosophical texts, often line by line, and are asked to interpret difficult passages, clarify an author’s argument, and assess its internal coherence. This method encourages students to grapple directly with the language and structure of philosophical argumentation. It is particularly important in a field where the smallest textual nuance can change the stakes of a claim. Since many of these texts are challenging, instructors often combine close reading with scaffolding strategies – providing guiding questions or summaries to help students stay oriented.
To support comprehension and structure abstract content, many instructors incorporate whiteboard modeling and concept mapping. This technique involves visually diagramming the logical connections between concepts, mapping out contrasting views (e.g., Rawls vs. Nozick), or laying out the decision structure of a thought experiment (e.g., in various versions of the Trolley Problem). This method invites active student participation in collaboratively drawing conceptual maps and teasing out the differences and comparing the stakes of different iterations of a scenario. By externalizing the architecture of an argument, students can better follow complex debates and understand how ideas interrelate, which also helps to organize students’ thinking about complex philosophical questions and dilemmas.
Another widely used strategy is case-based learning, where students are asked to apply theoretical frameworks to specific scenarios. These might be entirely hypothetical, like variants of the Trolley Problem or prisoners’ dilemmas; or real-world examples that reflect moral or political tensions, such as debates on surveillance, taxation, or civil disobedience. This method helps students see the stakes of abstract ideas and test the limits of theories when applied to novel or emotionally charged situations.
Finally, structured debates are often used to develop argumentative and rhetorical skills. Students are assigned opposing sides of a question (e.g., utilitarianism vs. deontology, or democracy vs. technocracy) and asked to construct a persuasive case using both theoretical and intuitive support. This format pushes students to inhabit viewpoints they may not hold, fostering deeper engagement and understanding of alternative positions.
In this model of teaching, instruction frequently emphasizes thesis-driven writing. Students are asked not only to understand and summarize complex arguments but to respond to them with their own evaluative claims. For instance, they may be prompted to develop a provisional thesis – such as “Hobbes’ argument against popular participation in government is unconvincing because it fails to adequately address A, B, and C” – and then guided through a structured process of identifying the specific claims Hobbes makes, evaluating their plausibility, anticipating counterarguments, and situating their critique within a broader philosophical dialogue (University of Washington, n.d.). This fosters clarity and precision, especially in distinguishing between empirical disagreements and conceptual objections.
Taken together, these methods have long shaped the way political philosophy is taught in higher education. They offer varied ways for students to engage with big, often abstract questions, and can be adapted to suit different learning styles and academic backgrounds. In many classrooms, these approaches help students, especially those without prior exposure to philosophy, begin to find their voice in analyzing complex arguments and imagining alternative possibilities.
At the same time, their effectiveness can depend heavily on context. For example, methods like open debate or hypothetical reasoning may initially feel outlandish or even frustrating to students who are more familiar with factual or technical disciplines, or who come from educational systems where questioning foundational texts is not encouraged. In classrooms where students are directly affected by political instability or injustice, the use of highly abstract or contrived scenarios can seem disconnected from lived experience – or worse, appear to trivialize it. Similarly, close reading of canonical Western texts might require reframing to avoid reproducing narrow or exclusionary understandings of justice and political legitimacy. At times, this may also involve inviting students to consider who the text was originally written for, and to reflect on their own relationship to that intended audience. Do they see themselves as part of it – or outside of it? If the latter, how might the ideas or frameworks offered still be made relevant or useful in their context? And if not directly applicable, how might they be reinterpreted, challenged, or adapted to speak to different political or moral realities?
Rather than abandoning these methods, the challenge is often to thoughtfully adapt and sequence them: to make space for discomfort and resistance, to acknowledge what might not translate across cultures or disciplines, and to ensure students feel invited into the conversation rather than evaluated by it. With careful attention, these classical approaches can still offer meaningful entry points into some of the most pressing questions of political life –even, and perhaps especially, in places where such questions are not abstract at all.
Practical Implementation Guide: Concept Mapping with a Jigsaw Activity
The 'Concept mapping with a jigsaw' activity combines visual concept mapping and collaborative group work to help students unpack the core ideas of foundational political philosophers. It is designed to facilitate a more nuanced understanding of abstract and interrelated concepts such as the state of nature, human nature, and the purpose of government. The jigsaw format encourages collaboration and accountability, since each group becomes responsible for a key part of the overall discussion. Visual representations, like tables or concept maps, aim to help students see relationships between theories more clearly and organize abstract material in a way that makes it easier to understand. It also fosters peer teaching, which can be especially effective in mixed-discipline classrooms. Download Worksheet 1 for full instructions on implementing this activity.
Practical Implementation Guide: Simulating the State of Nature
One way to help students engage with abstract political theory – especially the idea of the “state of nature” – is to let them experience it for themselves through structured classroom simulations. This technique creates space for students to explore major philosophical questions about human nature, the purpose and role of government, and political authority in a more interactive and memorable way. Instead of just reading and analyzing Hobbes or Locke, they are invited to “live” the theory for a class period, then reflect on how it felt and what it might mean.
The first simulation models Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature and is based on a gameplay described by Pollock (2014). Students receive character sheets and resources, and are placed in a fictional situation without government or laws. They need to survive, make decisions, and sometimes form (or break) alliances. At the end, the surviving players need to decide whether to stay in the state of nature or enter civil society. The structure of the game deliberately reflects Hobbes’s assumptions: scarce resources, lack of trust, and no external authority. The aim is not simply to watch conflict emerge “naturally”, but to help students see how Hobbes theorizes the conditions that produce a war of all against all. In other words, the simulation shows how Hobbes sets the stage for the outcomes he predicts, reinforcing his argument for the necessity of a strong, centralized authority to secure peace and cooperation. This also prompts students to question the plausibility of his assumptions.
The second simulation uses the same basic materials but changes the rules to reflect Locke’s view of the state of nature. While there are other existing models for this (e.g., Immerwahr et al., 1983), I found them too complex for my setting. Instead, I decided to modify the Hobbes game mechanics to model Locke’s version of the state of nature. I adapted the materials from the Hobbes simulation but altered the mechanics to reflect Locke’s core ideas. Instead of structuring the game around scarcity and mistrust, this version introduces opportunities for cooperation, mutual recognition of basic rights, and shared expectations about fairness. The game is designed to highlight Locke’s belief that the state of nature is not necessarily a state of war, but becomes unstable due to the lack of an impartial authority to resolve disputes. The modified rules and incentives help students see how Locke’s account of political society emerges from a different set of assumptions about human nature and the role of government –and that these assumptions shape how people behave within the simulation.
Each simulation ends with a short reflection paper. Students are asked to describe and explain their choices during the game, and connect their experiences to the key ideas in the readings. This helps them apply what they’ve learned in a personal and analytical way, and often leads to deeper insights than a lecture alone. It also creates space for personal reflection and encourages students to connect philosophical ideas with their own political realities and lived experiences.
These simulations work well in diverse classrooms, especially for students who might not be familiar with philosophical texts or abstract argumentation. They also offer a creative way to respond to the challenge of AI in the classroom, since the learning is rooted in shared experience rather than in easily generated text. Students regularly refer back to these simulations throughout the semester, and they offer a strong foundation for exploring later concepts and hypothetical situations like Rawls’s Original Position.
Download Worksheet 2 for full instructions on implementing this activity.
The first simulation models Hobbes’s idea of the state of nature and is based on a gameplay described by Pollock (2014). Students receive character sheets and resources, and are placed in a fictional situation without government or laws. They need to survive, make decisions, and sometimes form (or break) alliances. At the end, the surviving players need to decide whether to stay in the state of nature or enter civil society. The structure of the game deliberately reflects Hobbes’s assumptions: scarce resources, lack of trust, and no external authority. The aim is not simply to watch conflict emerge “naturally”, but to help students see how Hobbes theorizes the conditions that produce a war of all against all. In other words, the simulation shows how Hobbes sets the stage for the outcomes he predicts, reinforcing his argument for the necessity of a strong, centralized authority to secure peace and cooperation. This also prompts students to question the plausibility of his assumptions.
The second simulation uses the same basic materials but changes the rules to reflect Locke’s view of the state of nature. While there are other existing models for this (e.g., Immerwahr et al., 1983), I found them too complex for my setting. Instead, I decided to modify the Hobbes game mechanics to model Locke’s version of the state of nature. I adapted the materials from the Hobbes simulation but altered the mechanics to reflect Locke’s core ideas. Instead of structuring the game around scarcity and mistrust, this version introduces opportunities for cooperation, mutual recognition of basic rights, and shared expectations about fairness. The game is designed to highlight Locke’s belief that the state of nature is not necessarily a state of war, but becomes unstable due to the lack of an impartial authority to resolve disputes. The modified rules and incentives help students see how Locke’s account of political society emerges from a different set of assumptions about human nature and the role of government –and that these assumptions shape how people behave within the simulation.
Each simulation ends with a short reflection paper. Students are asked to describe and explain their choices during the game, and connect their experiences to the key ideas in the readings. This helps them apply what they’ve learned in a personal and analytical way, and often leads to deeper insights than a lecture alone. It also creates space for personal reflection and encourages students to connect philosophical ideas with their own political realities and lived experiences.
These simulations work well in diverse classrooms, especially for students who might not be familiar with philosophical texts or abstract argumentation. They also offer a creative way to respond to the challenge of AI in the classroom, since the learning is rooted in shared experience rather than in easily generated text. Students regularly refer back to these simulations throughout the semester, and they offer a strong foundation for exploring later concepts and hypothetical situations like Rawls’s Original Position.
Download Worksheet 2 for full instructions on implementing this activity.
References
Brown, J. R., & Fehige, Y. (2023, Winter edition). Thought experiments. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/thought-experiment/
Hampton, J. (1998). Hobbes. In Political philosophy (pp. 39–52). Westview Press.
Hampton, J. (1998). Locke. In Political philosophy (pp. 53–67). Westview Press.
Immerwahr, J., McCann, S., Murphy, C., & Zampetti, R. (1983). The Locke game. Teaching Philosophy, 6(1), 31–39.
Pollock, R. (2014). Evaluating the state of nature through gameplay. Teaching Philosophy, 37(1), 57–72.
Popper, K. (1959). On the use and misuse of imaginary experiments, especially in quantum theory. In The logic of scientific discovery (pp. 442–456). Hutchinson.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1998). A discourse on the origin of inequality (G. D. H. Cole, Trans., Part I, pp. 14–40). Digireads. (Original work published 1755)
University of Washington. (n.d.). Writing political theory papers. https://depts.washington.edu/pswrite/Handouts/WritingPoliticalTheoryPapers.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2023/entries/thought-experiment/
Hampton, J. (1998). Hobbes. In Political philosophy (pp. 39–52). Westview Press.
Hampton, J. (1998). Locke. In Political philosophy (pp. 53–67). Westview Press.
Immerwahr, J., McCann, S., Murphy, C., & Zampetti, R. (1983). The Locke game. Teaching Philosophy, 6(1), 31–39.
Pollock, R. (2014). Evaluating the state of nature through gameplay. Teaching Philosophy, 37(1), 57–72.
Popper, K. (1959). On the use and misuse of imaginary experiments, especially in quantum theory. In The logic of scientific discovery (pp. 442–456). Hutchinson.
Rousseau, J.-J. (1998). A discourse on the origin of inequality (G. D. H. Cole, Trans., Part I, pp. 14–40). Digireads. (Original work published 1755)
University of Washington. (n.d.). Writing political theory papers. https://depts.washington.edu/pswrite/Handouts/WritingPoliticalTheoryPapers.pdf
Author Bio
Zlata Božac is an educator focused on critical thinking, academic writing, and inclusive, democratic teaching. She designs interdisciplinary, locally grounded curricula that support diverse learners and connect liberal arts education to real-world contexts. She honed her skills primarily through teaching in the Core Division at Al-Quds Bard College for Arts and Sciences in Palestine, but also as an instructor in Human Rights and International Law, Philosophy of Science, and Political Science. She holds degrees in Political Science and Philosophy from University of Zagreb and Central European University, where she gained her PhD. Both her previous education and research interests bear witness to her dedication to interdisciplinarity and social justice.
