<p> Video game studies pertaining to representations of gender, race, culture, and sexuality are commonly discussed in relation to the characters, narrative, or gameplay mechanics. Video game environments are often left out of these discussions as most publications focus on how the environment was created and environmental storytelling. In this pilot study the researcher had participants analyze and discuss three futuristic, dystopian environments that contained alternative ways of representing gender, race, culture, and sexuality. The environments did not have gameplay or character interactions so that the player could focus on the environment. Results indicated that futuristic dystopian environments do not need to rely on stereotypes and harmful depictions to evoke core themes, even if they relate to violence, sex, oppression, or addiction. However, a lack of representation or a “neutral” take on representating gender, race, sexuality, and culture results in world that feels bland, isolated, and unnatural. Additionally, while participants disagreed on certain representations or noticed different aspects of the environments, the researcher found that focusing on “playtesting” just the environment can reveal how certain values, themes, and representations arise out of prop repetition, prop juxtaposition, and even how the player moves physically through the space.</p><p></p>

<p dir="ltr">In my dissertation, “Scanlonian Contractualism and Animals,” I take T.M. Scanlon’s ethical contractualism, convert it into a political theory, and apply it to deriving the duties of justice we owe to nonhuman animals. Here is the narrative structure of my dissertation. First, I argue in chapter 1 that nonhuman animals should be included within the scope of morality, or justice, as contractualism construes this notion. Animals are some of the “others” to whom we owe duties, particularly duties of justice. To this effect, I defend a revised version of the argument from marginal cases. </p><p dir="ltr">Second, I tell the reader how contractualism works in detail in chapters 2 and 3, making modifications and conversions into political philosophy along the way. Crucial for my discussion will be the debate between Derek Parfit and Scanlon over issues such as how to take numbers into account within contractualism. Scanlon’s considered view is that personal reasons should be added up to determine what we ought to do, but this is not the aggregation of impersonal value, for example, as in utilitarianism.</p><p dir="ltr">In chapter 4, a major step taken is the conversion of political contractualism into a form of Rawlsian political liberalism. Political liberalism takes the fact of reasonable pluralism of comprehensive doctrines on life’s important questions as a permanent feature of liberal democracy. In order to address this pluralism, political liberalism seeks to provide a political conception of justice that can be endorsed by people who differ on fundamental ethical, philosophical, and religious matters. My version of animal rights contractualism adopts this framework, but it takes work to show how animal rights and political liberalism are compatible.</p><p dir="ltr">Third, in chapter 5, a neutral metric for the harm of death will be suggested, following the requirements of political liberalism to offer a political conception of various aspects of our theories. This needs to be done because the harm of death is a complex, contested philosophical issue. The contractors need this metric to figure out what burdens are imposed by death. A neutral metric is meant to be one that can be endorsed by adherents of different comprehensive philosophical viewpoints in an overlapping consensus.</p><p dir="ltr">Fourth, and finally, some of the specific political duties we have to nonhuman animals will be stated. I survey some of the most common topics that are usually explored here, such as factory-farming, medical research, and hunting. The hope is that at the end of the work, the reader will be convinced that contractualism provides a plausible account of what we owe to each animal.</p>