[EDIT] I should add that it's incredibly powerful and probably under-used outside the Poli-Sci department and perhaps business schools. Trying it for, say, some position you aspire to, like development lead or CTO, for example (I've been hired, it's day one, orientation's over, what do I do first? What's important? Who do I talk to? What info do I need? Who has it? What systems might exist to get it? How should I present myself to others in various positions?) can quickly expose gaps in your knowledge or education, suggesting what to focus on first to get there. You can also use it to figure out how to interact with people in other positions to be as helpful to them as possible while keeping them off your back (because you're giving them what they need to do their job) especially if they're not great at what they do. It's damn useful.
That is, when this came up on August, one commenter at https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2019/08/29/but-it-is... posed a roughly equivalent problem:
> “you’ve just overthrown the government in a socialist workers’ uprising. The royal family and all members of the nobility have been executed by firing squad. As the recently elected chairman of the Greater London Soviet, explain why this was both necessary and moral.”
Surely that's equally "acceptable" perspective for a role-playing exercise, yes?
In your edit you commented that it's an exercise for practicing for "some position you aspire to". Doesn't that imply that someone who aspires to be a PM should practice concocting excuses to explain why it was "both necessary and moral" to kill protestors? Wouldn't better practice for a PM in this case to be to express sorrow about the deaths, announce the start of an independent investigation into the issue (and not be people with ties to the government), etc.?
Doesn't this sort of exercise also reduce the number of people who enter political science simply because they don't want to spend time to defend a some positions they believe to be unconscionable?
I took a foreign language class once and we were asked to practice by having a debate on some topic. I don't remember what it was, so let's say "for or against smoking in public restaurants". I was assigned the task of defending the ability to smoke in a restaurant - something I am very much against - and refused to do it.
Just like a social activist teenager with a history of going to demonstrations might be against needing to justify the morality of killing protestors.
Or the teenager from the ranks of nobility might not want to justify killing his or her family for the needs of the Greater London Soviet.
I think many would see it as rather tasteless given fairly recent UK history:
Just to be fair, I think an analogous prompt for Americans might be:
"Terrorists have just destroyed the Empire State Building and Willis (fka Sears) Tower in simultaneous attacks. Three days later, you have ordered troops to invade the suspected state sponsors of these attacks. Write a speech defending this military action."
(+) yes I know this is unconstitutional, that's the point
How so? The National Guard is a federal troop organization that can be called upon by a state Governor in a state of emergency. Doing so is hardly a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
If you look at UK history, it has actually happened on several occasions. Peterloo, Amritsar. Why shouldn't we think about what to say?
Defending and justifying a position you don't personally hold is an especially useful exercise imo.
You would almost suspect that they are trying to select individuals who have a natural instinct to maintaining current power structures, but clearly that is nonsense and what they are looking for is a carefully reasoned response.
Yeah, not so sure about that.
The working and upper classes have more similarities socially than do the middle and upper classes in a lot of ways.
Outgroup homogeneity bias — they’re both unlike us, therefore they’re both kinda the same!
Different social classes operate differently.
The British, on the other hand, have a very complex class system and a meaningful upper class. I wouldn’t recommend trying to transport your understanding of “class” across the Atlantic.
The working, middle and upper class in the UK behave in very different ways, it's definitional. This article is the citation.
I would bear in mind that British class is quite different to American class. It's far less to do with money here.
One of the best exams I ever took was a two-part exam, 90 minutes per part - the first part gave a narrative of a set of facts and the disposition of a lawsuit arising from the facts, then asked us to write the majority opinion for the appeal. The second part (which was handed out after we turned in our answer to the first part) simply said "Now write the dissenting opinion."
These sorts of questions force to you use the best arguments of ideologies you may not agree with. I think that is very useful, particularly in today's political climate.
"The government has announced the banning of a large opposition party, and that its leaders will be subject to internment without trial. A peaceful demonstration was organised, but the Army fired randomly from sniper positions into the crowd, resulting in thirteen people dead. Write the speech you would give calling for a general strike to shut down the government until democratic representation and human rights can be restored."
> If there are "violent protesters" or "rioters" who have "damaged public buildings" and, as a result of the riots, "several policemen have died," the government has some cause to use force.
This is more or less the exact argument of the Chinese Communist party against the HK demonstrators, by the way.
Edit: I see my example controversial position is controversial on here, too.
> The year is 2040. There have been riots in the streets of London after Britain has run out of petrol because of an oil crisis in the Middle East. Protesters have attacked public buildings. Several policemen have died. Consequently, the Government has deployed the Army to curb the protests. After two days the protests have been stopped but twenty-five protesters have been killed by the Army.
> You are the Prime Minister. Write the script for a speech to be broadcast to the nation in which you explain why employing the Army against violent protesters was the only option available to you and one which was both necessary and moral.
If there are "violent protesters" or "rioters" who have "damaged public buildings" and, as a result of the riots, "several policemen have died," the government has some cause to use force.
The line between legitimate violent upheaval and illegitimate violent upheaval is blurry. I don't see anythig wrong with the question.