content/chapters/08_question.md

8. Question — what question are you actually answering?

This chapter is about the question the case asks at the end, and how that question quietly decides what kinds of answers feel possible.

The case ends with: "You are asked to evaluate whether the use of this AI system is ethically acceptable." That sounds like a clear question. So the natural thing is to accept it and try to answer it. You give a yes-with-conditions, or a no, or a balanced "it depends on the safeguards" answer.

But the question itself is doing more work than is easy to notice, and naming that is itself a strong move.

The case's question can be answered at two different depths, and each one leads to a different kind of argument. The surface depth: "How can we make this system acceptable?" That is the level of technical fixes. Add an opt-out. Set up an appeals process. Improve the false-positive rate. Train counsellors better. Your argument lives here when you take the system as given and ask how to soften its edges. The deeper depth: "Should this kind of system exist at this school at all?" At this depth you are questioning the project itself, not just its execution. Is "early detection of mental health risk through behavioural inference" the right shape for a school's response to student wellbeing in the first place? Your strongest move is usually to land at the second depth, but only after knowing you made that choice and being able to say why.

There is also something hidden in the word "acceptable." Acceptable to whom? Not to a flagged student, who is not in a position to accept or refuse. Not to a future student, who has not enrolled yet. The question "is this acceptable?" can only really be asked by the people who decide whether to deploy. Accepting the case's question quietly puts you in their position. A stronger argument notices which depth it is answering at, and from whose position.