John Locke论文竞赛三大评判标准,助你拿奖!

一篇令评委老师眼前一亮的论文应该具备哪些特点呢?今天带大家一起来了解以下获奖论文的评判标准。

知识水平对相关主题的理解

将你的文章与任意的思考区分开,来展示你的学科知识,其中一种方法是熟悉与主题相关的文献,并将其很好地融入你的的论文中。

一起来看看2020 年心理学奖的获奖论文是如何做到这一点的。

Isn't all reasoning (outside mathematics and formal logic) motivated reasoning?

翻译:不是所有的推理(数学和形式逻辑之外)都是有动机的推理吗?

在广义上讲,所有超出数学和形式逻辑之外的推理都包含某种程度的主观性,这也被称为“有动机的推理”。研究表明,如果事实挑战我们的个人信念,并且从根本上挑战我们的道德评价和目前对世界的理解,我们就会进行有动机的推理。

通过谈论更广泛文献中的动机推理,作者可以表明他们精通该领域的重要发展。例如,他们可以提及有动机的推理如何影响决策,如何在政治和法律辩论中发挥作用,以及如何影响科学推理和知识发展。作者还可以讨论减轻有动机推理影响的技术,例如考虑相反立场和搜索证据的技巧。总的来说,通过展示对这个重要话题的广泛而深入的理解,作者可以证明他们对该学科的专业知识。

善于使用论据来支撑观点

在你的文章中,有不同的方法可以有效地使用论据。其中一种方法是用以前的研究结果来支持你的论点。

2020 年经济学三等奖论文向我们展示了这在实践中的情况。

What is the socially efficient level of crime? (Professor Daniel d’Amico, Brown University)

翻译:什么是社会有效的犯罪水平?

“此外,这甚至可以扩展到 PTSD,意大利医生 GP Fichera 进行的一项调查得出的结论是,13% 的抽样单位是很有可能会出现这种情况。

在这里开始经济分析,这说明从事这种非法活动的成本,如果被抓住会产生巨大的影响,它不等于社会成本......”,GP Fichera 的研究被用来加强作者对犯罪的社会成本并赋予其更多权重。

综上所述,使用先前的研究结果或研究人员的观点来支持你的论点是一种有效的策略。这种方法可以给读者带来可信度和权威性,因为它显示你的论点是基于已建立的知识和专业人士的见解。

当然,你也要确保引用的研究与你的主题密切相关,且来自可靠的来源。如果读者无法找到你引用的研究,或者发现它与你的主题无关,那么这种策略可能会产生相反的效果。

如果以恰当和有分寸的方式使用,引用先前研究结果可以是一种非常有效的论证策略。

结构、写作风格和说服力

一个有说服力的好论点不仅依靠好的证据和推理来支撑这个主张以具有影响力的方式展现它也同样重要。

让我们看看2020年法律奖的获得者如何做?

Does a law that prohibits the selling of sex protects or infringe women's rights?

翻译:法律禁止卖淫是否侵犯或保护妇女的权利?

这是一个极具争议的问题,涉及妇女权利、道德伦理以及社会控制等复杂问题。

维克多·雨果在其小说《悲惨世界》中写道,雨果对芳汀的描写是一位堕落的女人在最不幸的情况下被迫卖淫的原型,这与今天看到的主动从事性工作者截然不同, 突出了与商业性行为相关的广泛细微差别及其对从事贸易的妇女的影响。

雨果对芳汀的描写反映了19世纪对妓女的典型态度,将其视为堕落和受害者。然而,如今许多性工作者主张卖淫应被视为一种合法职业选择,禁止卖淫的法律侵犯了她们的自主权和经济权利。这反映了女权运动的进步,但也引发了许多道德和伦理上的争议。

然而,为了保护芳汀的权利,雨果会支持卖淫的法律吗?“ 在文章的第一行中使用维克多·雨果赋予了它一种文学风格并增强了论点的影响力。” 同样,修辞问题最终增加了论证的文学维度。雨果的作品为我们提供了19世纪的视角,可以对比今天的女权主义观点,从而深入理解这一问题的复杂性。在论证过程中引入文学作品可以为讨论带来深度和广度,增加说服力。

以上是给大家分享John Locke的竞赛的评判标准,大家可以从评判标准出发,有目的的调整写作方向。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

文商社科爬藤必备竞赛!参加John Locke约翰·洛克写作竞赛有用吗?

申请英国本科的孩子也同样需要这一比赛。除了牛津、剑桥等个别院校外,人文社科专业大多都没有笔试,而英国申请又不像美国那般那么看重学生的非学术类经历,所以一篇优秀的获奖论文将为申请增添光彩。

John Locke论文竞赛能提供七大写作主题,无论获奖与否,都会帮助学生展现自身学术潜力。在申请英国大学时,Writing Sample的重要性不亚于GPA,它能帮助学生展示自己的学术兴趣和写作能力。

今年的比赛在流程方面与往届相比发生了两个重要变化:所有候选人必须在英国夏令时2023年5月31日下午1点59分之前使用有效的电子邮箱注册参加比赛,不接受在截止日期前未注册的候选人提交的文章。注册将于2023年3月15日开始。

如果候选人出于某些原因错过了6月30日的文章提交截止日期,可延迟报名,具体延迟报名条件为:

1)20.00英镑的逾期报名费美元必须在原定截止日期的二十四小时内通过信用卡支付;

2)你的论文必须提交2023年7月10日英国夏令时晚上11点59分之前。

奖项设置

Grand Prize:所有学科领域评选出的最佳作品,获奖者将获得John Locke Institute青少年荣誉奖学金1万美元,可用于参加的一个或多个summer school或gap year课程。

Winner/Second Prize/Third Prize:各学科领域评选出一、二、三等奖各1名,作品经作者许可后发表在赛事官网。学科一等奖将获得2000美元奖学金,可用于参加John Locke Institute课程。

Commendation/High Commendation:作品入围但最终未能获得正式奖项的选手也有机会获得相关奖项。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

参加John Locke论文竞赛有什么用?

申请美本院校时,除了GPA、标化成绩外,最为重要的录取因素之一就是学术的渴求性/探知欲(Academic Curiosity),美本招生官关注的不只是学生的学术水平和领导力,同时也更加看重学生们对于广阔世界的探索欲、求知欲,对于未知事物的好奇。

学术探知欲不仅仅体现在课堂上,同样也体现在课外活动中。John Locke论文竞赛则能很好的展现学生们学术渴求度。它提供的7个大分类下的3个小问题,每个都允许学生用自己的独一无二的视角来论证自己的观点。学生可以选择自己感兴趣的话题,通过深入研究论证自己的观点。这种独立思考和研究的能力正是美本院校寻找的学生的关键能力。无论文章获奖与否,都会是证明学术探知欲的最好佐证,并成为文书素材,亦或是面试谈资。

人文社科竞赛天花板!John Locke论文竞赛考查学生哪些能力?

不同于理工科有成百上千种竞赛,对于人文社科申请者来说,可供选择的竞赛少之又少。John Locke Essay Competition是一项正适合于文商社科申请者,高含金量高且高性价比的背景提升活动。

John Locke Essay Competition(约翰·洛克论文竞赛)是以英国英国哲学家和医生约翰·洛克来命名的,由John Locke Institute与牛津、普林斯顿等名校教授合作组织的学术项目,其评审全部来自英国牛津大学。John Locke Essay Contest 要求参赛学生有扎实的哲学基础知识和较强的哲学思维能力,参赛过程对提高学生的这两方面能力非常有帮助。参赛并取得优异成绩,可以有效地提高学生的哲学学习兴趣,拓宽哲学视野,并培养哲学实践能力。

比赛题目

高年级组(15-18岁)

参赛题目涉及 哲学、政治、经济学、历史、心理学、神学、法律 7个人文社科领域,共28个可选题。

John Locke Essay Competition主要考察学生哪些能力?

1)是否了解哲学,政治,经济,历史,心理学,神学或法律等学科领域的基本知识结构

2) 是否掌握议论文的基本写作格式和技巧

3) 是否在文章中展现独立的思想,清晰的逻辑和辩证的分析方式

一般中学生以上几项能力都较为薄弱,通过该写作课程,你将有机会静下心来辩证地分析观点,学习英文写作的逻辑思维和技巧,收获参与写作比赛的宝贵经历,并更好地应对IB/AP/A-Level等学术写作。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

John Locke Essay Contest 考察学生的哲学基础知识和哲学思维能力。

它要求学生对约翰·洛克的政治哲学和认识论有扎实深入的理解,并在此基础上独立思考并撰写高质量的哲学论文。参赛学生需要广泛阅读相关资料,深入理解约翰·洛克的主要著作,熟悉其核心思想;需要对选定的论文题目进行深入全面的研究,构建清晰合理的论文框架,严密逻辑的论证过程;需要熟练运用哲学思维方式,对论点进行深入细致的分析和论证。

参赛并取得优异成绩,可以更加有效地提高学生的哲学学习兴趣,拓宽哲学视野,并培养哲学实践能力。

John Locke论文竞赛该如何准备?为什么推荐参加John Locke论文竞赛?

John Locke论文竞赛

John Locke论文竞赛该如何准备

选择论文题目。可以选择竞赛官网公布的论文题目,也可以自己提出论文题目。题目应该与对象主义哲学密切相关,最好能深入研究约翰·洛克的某一哲学思想。

搜集相关资料。广泛阅读与论文题目相关的著作和文献,收集相关理论、论据、数据等资料。尤其要研读约翰·洛克的著作,理解其观点和论证过程。

确定论文框架。论文框架包括导言、主体(包括若干段落)和结论三部分。导言应该包括论文题目的提出、研究意义和研究方法;主体应该围绕论文题目展开论述和论证;结论应该对全文内容做出总结。

论文写作。遵循对象主义哲学和约翰·洛克的思想,运用所学知识,严密地论证自己的观点。论文要有清晰的逻辑结构,条理清楚,论据充分。

论文修改。修改涉及词汇、句法、逻辑、论证等多个方面。要消除语言错误,完善论证过程,使文章内容更加充实、论点更加清晰和论证更加严密。

论文评估。在参赛前,请指导老师或同学评估论文,听取他人意见,进一步修改论文。参赛时,评委会也会对论文进行评估,要提前做好准备,以便在评估中作出有力的辩护。

通过上述准备,可以写出一篇符合约翰·洛克哲学精神和对象主义哲学要求的优秀论文,在John Locke Essay Contest 中有较大的获奖机会。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

为什么推荐参加John Locke论文竞赛

高含金量

John Locke论文竞赛的奖项都由以牛津大学为主的学者团体评定。John Locke Essay Competition的主办方为John Locke Institute。其中John Locke Institute是位于英国牛津的独立教育组织。而John Locke Essay Competition更是由英国牛津大学和美国普林斯顿大学等名校教授合作参与组织的学术项目竞赛。此外,John Locke Essay Competition的评审全部来自英国牛津大学。

高认可度

比赛受到英美各大优质院校的认可,可以说该竞赛是近几年人文社科类含金量最高的竞赛之一,每年的参与学生都被普林斯顿,哈佛,耶鲁等各大名校录取。

助力名校申请

同时这个比赛的参赛对象为全世界范围内思考能力最强的中学生。在比赛中获得Distinction可以大幅提升美国和英国大学本科申请竞争力。

提高学术写作能力

John Locke Essay Contest 要求参赛学生有扎实的哲学基础知识和较强的哲学思维能力,参赛过程对提高学生的这两方面能力非常有帮助。参赛并取得优异成绩,可以有效地提高学生的哲学学习兴趣,拓宽哲学视野,并培养哲学实践能力。

John Locke 写作竞赛关键时间节点请查收!附John Locke 写作竞赛常见问题

提到人文社科竞赛不得不提的便是John Locke 写作竞赛John Locke 写作竞赛一直都是爬藤申请牛剑的加分项,能入围甚至拿奖的话,对申请名校大有裨益约翰洛克写作竞赛(John Locke Essay Competition)由位于英国牛津的独立教育组织John Locke Institute主办。

关键时间节点

开启注册时间:4月1日,请使用有效电子邮件地址

报名截止时间:5月31日,不接受截止日期前未注册的学生提交论文

提交截止时间:6月30日(晚上11.59 pm BST前),提交论文完全免费

逾期报名截止时间:7月10日,逾期参赛将收取20美元的费用,于7月1日前支付

如果没能及时提交论文也不用担心,今年的John Locke新增了论文延迟提交的机会,但需要注意必须满足以下两个条件:

必须在英国时间7月1日23:59前(即国内时间7月2日6:59前)缴纳20美元的延迟报名费用;

延迟提交的论文必须在英国时间7月10日23:59前(即国内时间7月11日6:59前)提交。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

常见问题

Q1:我没有收到关于我的论文已提交的确认信息,如何确认组委是否收到?

答:主办方将在7月14日星期五宣布入围名单时写信给所有候选人。如果在该日期之前还没有收到电子邮件,欢迎给主办方发送电子邮件,以确认主办方确实收到并评分了你的论文。

Q2:脚注、参考书目或参考文献列表是否计入字数限制?

答:不计入,只有文章的正文被计算在内。

Q3:引用应该是脚注还是文内引用?

答:我们不对引用施加任何规则。

Q4:论文中有必要加脚注吗?

答:不需要包含脚注,但应该写明你所做的任何事实声明的来源。

Q5:年龄资格标准有多严格?

答:在2023年6月30日前未满19岁的学生可以参加。对于低年级组,在2023年6月30日前未满15岁的学生可以参加。

Q6:我可以提交多篇论文吗?

答:是的,可以在任一或所有类别中提交任意数量的论文。

Q7:我必须参加颁奖典礼才能获奖吗?

答:学生无需前往牛津也可以获得奖项。如果受到邀请参加颁奖典礼,那是因为你的论文足够好,在第一轮评委看来,至少可以成为一等奖、二等奖或三等奖的竞争者。

Q8:有报名费吗?

答:在6月30日这个截止日期之前提交是免费的。

文商社科爬藤必备!John Locke竞赛流程&作品要求&奖项设置

在国际数学竞赛圈中,AMC数学竞赛火爆程度众所周知,而在论文写作界,John Locke论文写作比赛也是全世界最受欢迎和认可的中学生英文论文写作比赛之一。

竞赛流程

报名条件:

全球学生均有资格参赛,其中分为高年级组和低年级组。

高年级组:提交论文时年满18岁及以下

低年级组:提交论文时年满15岁及以下

适合学生:

专业兴趣方向为经济、心理、法律、新闻、国际关系、哲学、历史等人文社科的学生。想要提升并证明自己议论文写作能力的学生。

John Locke竞赛文章作品要求:

1、字数限制:2000字

2、学生可以提交多篇论文,每篇论文只能对应一个题目。

John Locke竞赛文章提交格式:参赛者需要提交PDF文件,且文件名必须按以下格式命名:FirstName-LastName-Category-QuestionNumber.pdf

例如:Alexander Popham会以以下文件名提交他对于心理学中第2个问题的答案:Alexander-Popham-Psychology-2.pdf文件名不符合此格式的文章将被拒绝。

John Locke竞赛评价标准:评委会将根据论文所展现出的知识、理解水平、证据的有效使用、论证质量、结构、写作风格和说服力等方面进行评判。建议尽可能准确、直接地回答问题。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

竞赛奖项设置

所有的参赛作品均由牛津大学资深教授进行评判。他们将对参赛者的知识水平、对相关材料的理解程度、论证的质量、结构、文风和说服力来进行评判。参赛者应尽可能准确、直接地回答问题。

Grand Prize(1名)

评委将从所有参赛作品中选出一个最佳作品。大奖获得者将得到约翰洛克学院青年荣誉奖学金。

学科奖

每个学科选出一个最佳作品。获奖者的参赛作品经作者许可将发表于官网。学科奖分为一等奖(1名)、二等奖(1名)、三等奖(1名)。

入围奖

入围而未获奖者仍能获得Commendation 或者 High Commendation奖项。

一般情况下,截止日期后的一个半月公布优秀上榜文章。John Locke Institute有举办学术研讨会暨优秀文章颁奖晚宴的惯例,邀请这些优秀学生到牛津参会,每个话题的一、二、三等奖和最佳文章会在晚宴当天公布。

John Locke竞赛主要考察学生哪些能力?

1.是否了解哲学,政治,经济,历史,心理学,神学或法律等学科领域的基本知识结构;

2.对于议论文的基本写作格式和技巧是否了解;

3.能否借助文章表达查出自己的独立思想,行文逻辑是否清晰;

对于国内学生来说,在以上几个方面都不占优势过,能力相对较弱。如果能够借助专业老师的辅导,学生能够有机会静下心来辩证地分析观点,学习英文写作的逻辑和技巧,能够更好的应对学术写作。

2023年John Locke论文竞赛新变化要知道!John Locke论文竞赛含金量剖析!

John Locke论文竞赛是什么

John Locke 论文竞赛是由由位于英国牛津的独立教育组织John Locke Institute与牛津、普林斯顿、布朗、白金汉大学等名校教授合作组织的学术项目,其评审全部来自英国牛津大学。旨在鼓励和奖励世界各地高中生和本科生的哲学思考和研究,提高学生对哲学领域的兴趣和了解。该竞赛以英国哲学家约翰·洛克(John Locke)的名字命名,是世界上最受欢迎和知名的哲学竞赛之一。

竞赛的主题涉及哲学各个领域。参赛者需要根据竞赛规定撰写一篇不得超过2000字论文,并在规定时间内提交作品。每年的竞赛主题和具体要求会有所不同,但都需要参赛者具备一定的哲学素养和独立思考的能力。

John Locke 论文竞赛的获奖者将有机会获得在牛津大学参观和交流的机会,与国际上其他具有相似兴趣的年轻人交流和学习。

 2023年John Locke评选标准及细则

参加2023年John Locke写作竞赛的同学需注意,今年的参赛规则有所变化!

John Locke竞赛适合人群全球18岁以下对英美学术写作感兴趣、想要挑战自我的同学们均可参加。比赛分为14岁-18岁的高年级组和14岁以下的低年级组(Junior Prize)。

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

2023年John Locke竞赛主要变化

今年的比赛在流程方面与往届相比发生了两个重要变化:

所有候选人必须在英国夏令时2023年5月31日下午1点59分之前使用有效的电子邮箱注册参加比赛,不接受在截止日期前未注册的候选人提交的文章。注册将于2023年3月15日开始。

如果候选人出于某些原因错过了6月30日的文章提交截止日期,在满足以下两个条件的情况下,可进行延迟报名:

必须在原定截止日期后二十四小时内通过信用卡支付20.00美元的延迟报名费论文必须在英国夏令时2023年7月10日晚上11点59分之前提交

John Locke论文竞赛含金量

John Locke论文竞赛的含金量会根据不同的比赛组织、比赛规模、奖项设置和评审机制等因素而有所不同。一般来说,如果比赛由一些知名的机构或学术组织主办,评审团队由一些著名的学者或专家组成,比赛的奖项设置丰富并有一定的奖金,那么这样的比赛的含金量会比较高。

此外,John Locke论文竞赛的含金量还取决于参赛者的自身实力和成果。如果参赛者能够提交高质量的论文,有新颖的研究思路和深入的分析,能够很好地理解和应用John Locke的思想,那么他们在比赛中获胜的机会就会更大,获得的荣誉和奖励也会更加有价值。

总的来说,John Locke论文竞赛的含金量取决于多种因素的综合影响,参赛者需要仔细研究比赛的组织机构、评审标准、奖项设置等,以及自身的实力和成果,来判断比赛的含金量是否足够高。无论如何,参加这样的学术比赛都可以提升自身的学术水平和实力,对于参赛者的学术和职业生涯都有很大的帮助。

6月30日截止提交!文科生千万不容错过John Locke论文竞赛!

John Locke 是文科生非常有利的背景提升工具,向大学展现学生对所申请专业的“热爱”,往届优胜者遍布哈耶普斯牛剑G5等世界名校。John Locke论文竞赛是什么?适合哪些学生?参加John Locke论文竞赛有何意义?

John Locke论文竞赛介绍

John Locke Essay Competition(约翰·洛克论文竞赛)写作竞赛是由位于英国牛津的独立教育组织John Locke Institute与牛津、普林斯顿、布朗、白金汉大学等名校教授合作组织的学术项目,其评审全部来自英国牛津大学,参赛对象为全世界范围内思考能力最强的中学生。

往年参与学生录取成绩包括普林斯顿、哈佛、耶鲁、斯坦福、芝加哥、伯克利、牛津、剑桥等世界名校。

参赛人群:

任何国家和任何学校的学生均可参加,学生年龄为18岁(或者18岁以下),初中奖的候选人在截止日期前年龄不能超过14岁。
高年级组:15~18岁(7个人文社科领域选择题目)低年级组:15岁及以下(初中组题目)

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

关键时间节点

注册开始:2023年3月15日

注册截止日期:2023年5月31日(需要在此日期之前注册以便后续提交)

提交截止日期:2023年6月30日

延迟报名截止日期:2023年7月10日(延迟报名需在7月1日前支付20.00美元的费用)

通知入围候选人:2023年7月31日

学术会议和颁奖晚宴:2023年9月

John Locke论文竞赛参赛意义:

提高学术能力:参加John Locke论文竞赛需要撰写高质量的学术论文,这可以帮助参赛者提高他们的学术能力和写作技能。

提升知名度:参加John Locke论文竞赛可以让参赛者的论文被更广泛地阅读和了解。如果参赛者的论文在比赛中获奖或被认可,他们的知名度将会得到提升。

获得荣誉和奖励:参加John Locke论文竞赛可以让参赛者获得荣誉和奖励,例如奖金、证书、出版机会等。这些奖励可以在参赛者的学术和职业生涯中提供额外的推动和鼓励。

推广研究成果:参加John Locke论文竞赛可以让参赛者的研究成果得到更广泛的推广和传播。这可以让他们的研究成果得到更多的关注和应用。

拓展学术交流:参加John Locke论文竞赛可以让参赛者结识更多的学者和研究人员,并与他们进行学术交流和合作。这可以拓展参赛者的学术网络和视野。

综上所述,参加John Locke论文竞赛可以为参赛者的学术和职业生涯提供许多机会和优势。无论参赛者是否获奖,他们都可以从比赛中获益,并将这些经验应用到未来的学术和职业发展中。

低龄可冲的高含金量写作竞赛!2023年John Locke论文竞赛备考建议来了!

John Locke论文写作竞赛,2023赛季的题目已经公布!John Locke论文竞赛备受英美名校青睐,含金量极高,对于今年报名参赛的同学来说,又该如何准备这项人文社科竞赛天花板存在的论文竞赛呢?

John Locke Essay Competition(约翰·洛克论文竞赛)写作竞赛是由位于英国牛津的独立教育组织John Locke Institute与牛津、普林斯顿、布朗、白金汉大学等名校教授合作组织的学术项目,其评审全部来自英国牛津大学,参赛对象为全世界范围内思考能力最强的中学生。

适合学生:

适用对象:各个国家及学校的学生都可以参与。

高年级组:14岁~18岁

低年级组:14岁及以下

竞赛要求:

个人参赛,提交一篇2000词以内的论文(不包括图表、注释、参考文献和作者声明)

可选题目涉及哲学,政治,经济学,历史,心理学,神学,法律共七个领域的21个题目

时间节点:

报名考试日期:2023年3月15日

报名截止日期:2023年5月31日

提交作品截止日期:2023年6月30日

迟到的参赛作品截止日期:2023年7月10日(迟交的作品要收取20美元的费用,在7月1日前支付)

通知入围结果日期:2023年7月31日

学术会议和颁奖晚宴:2023年9月

扫码免费领取John Locke往年优秀作品

咨询报名注意事项+预约试听体验课

预约最新真题讲座、课程详情可添加下方顾问老师咨询

关于评比

John Locke写作比赛首先会在提交作品后由以牛津大学为主的学者团体评定,进而公布入围Shortlist的名单,之后会再从入围Shortlist的作品中再评选出Grand Prize、一二三等奖,及High Commendations获得者。

奖项与证书:设置4类奖项

Grand Prize (终极奖)

在各类学科下再分设:

Winner(冠军)

Second Prize(二等奖)

Third Prize(三等奖)

John Locke论文竞赛是一个对于哲学、政治和伦理学方面的研究人员和学生来说极具挑战性的比赛。以下是一些准备John Locke论文竞赛的建议:

确定研究领域:选择一个适合您的专业领域进行研究,例如哲学、政治或伦理学。

阅读John Locke的历年获奖论文:在开始撰写论文之前,可以多阅读John Locke的历年获奖论文,学习借鉴这些优秀的论文风格。

设定研究问题:根据您选择的研究领域和主题,制定一个有挑战性的研究问题,并对其进行深入分析。

收集资料:寻找关于您研究问题的相关资料。包括书籍、学术文章和其他参考资料。

评估资料:评估您找到的资料,确定哪些资料最有价值,可以用于支持您的论文。

撰写论文:撰写您的论文,并确保您的论文能够清晰地表达您的研究问题和研究发现。您的论文应该包括简要介绍、背景、研究问题、方法、结果和结论等部分。

重复检查:在提交之前,反复检查您的论文,确保没有任何拼写、语法或格式错误。

总之,准备John Locke论文竞赛需要花费大量的时间和精力,但是如果您充分准备并按照上述步骤进行,您将有机会在比赛中获得成功。

2019年初级奖

According to Nobel Laureate, Milton Friedman, 'there is one and only one social responsibility of business...to increase its profits...' Do you agree?

诺贝尔奖获得者米尔顿·弗里德曼(Milton Friedman)表示,“企业的社会责任只有一项......以增加其利润...”你同意吗?

Ethan Zhu,澳大利亚国王学校
2019年初级奖|平等获得者8 分钟阅读

Milton Friedman was a Nobel Prize winning economist who famously defended free market values and conservative politics. In his 1970 article, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, Friedman discusses the stockholder theory, stating that firms only have a ‘legal responsibility’ to make a profit for their shareholders.[1] Friedman’s view emerges in the context of the post-World War II rise of corporate capitalism as firms and executives tried to reconcile social and moral obligations with a stronger cultural emphasis on profit. Prior to this time, in AngloAmerican context, there was a strong belief that firms have moral standards beyond rational selfinterest. For instance, the concept of the ‘Christian’, civically-minded businessperson which predominated in the 19th century and well into the 20th. Friedman’s essay is especially relevant today due to the resurgent debate on the viability of Corporate Social Responsibility. This essay will argue there are five major flaws in Friedman’s arguments. Firstly, it will question Friedman’s argument that, while people have moral obligations, firms are not really moral actors. Relatedly, it will critique his moral distinction between privately owned firms and public companies. Secondly, it will examine Friedman’s odd concession that companies should still observe ‘ethical customs’, which contradicts his general stance. Thirdly, it will explore the complexity of determining when companies are seeking profit or acting morally. This is an issue Friedman acknowledges, but this essay will argue that he downplays its significance. Fourthly, this essay will critique Friedman’s argument that firms would not be efficacious in their attempts to achieve aims other than making profit. Fifthly, it will interrogate Friedman’s claim that firms can leave serious environmental and social reform to governments.

From the outset of his essay, Friedman argues that “only individuals can have responsibilities. A corporation is an artificial person and, in this sense may have artificial responsibilities, but "business" as a whole cannot be said to have responsibilities”.[2] He states that individuals who wish to contribute to a certain cause may do so with their own money and time, however, seeking to do it through a business is wrong, as it involves spending someone else’s money for one’s own interest. By contrast, he states that the obligations of a firm are to follow the law, not espouse any further morality.[3] However, Friedman’s argument is flawed, because corporations are formed by individuals. For instance, let us imagine an anti-racist CEO working in a racist area with weak anti-discrimination laws. If they follow Friendman’s argument, they would not hire a racial minority job candidate in a public-facing role. By doing so, however, they would perpetuate one of the worst forms of racism, economic disenfranchisement, and entrench race-based income inequality. In a capitalist society, individuals spend much of our lives at work and, indeed, it is often the role where we can most impact our community. While Milton Friedman states that individuals can have morals, therefore, he denies them the opportunity to express those morals or act in accordance with them.

Tellingly, Friedman excludes ‘individual proprietors’ from his essay and ‘focuses on corporate executives’.[4] This is because, technically, individual owners have total control over their business. The business is funded by their own money, and therefore, all expenditures are technically a ‘personal social cause’, which he states they are well within their rights to pursue. However, it should be noted that shareholders are very similar to individual proprietors. Shareholders simply have a portion of capital in a firm and use their shares to make decisions within the company, based on an agreed voting system. As such, if the collective will of the firm is that they should pursue corporate social responsibility then that is not meaningfully different from an individual proprietor. Even if one might say that the shareholders rarely vote on corporate strategy, they select the board who hires the CEO to act on their behalf every day. Part of the CEO’s considerations will naturally be to maximise all interests of the shareholders, including their moral values. Later in his essay, Friedman states, that “the newer phenomenon of calling upon stockholders to require corporations to exercise social responsibility” will... “involved is some stockholders trying to get other stockholders… to contribute against their will to ‘social causes’”. But the reverse is also true: totally-profit-seeking shareholders impose their will on more sociallyminded shareholders.[5] As Asher Schechter has argued in response to Friedman, paraphrasing the theories of Nobel Prize winning economists Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales, “A company’s ultimate shareholders are ordinary people who, in addition to caring about money, are also concerned about a myriad of ethical and social issues”[6] Friedman also argues that when large public companies pursue ethical standards also might harm consumers or employees[7] but similarly, pursuing profit also does not always please your customers, or employees. For example, raising the prices of your product may increase profit, but will likely frustrate customers, whilst lowering wages to cut costs may also annoy your employees. As scholar Lynn A. Stout noted when examining Friedman’s views “certainly they can choose to maximize profits; but they can also choose to pursue any other objective that is not unlawful, including taking care of employees and suppliers”.[8]

Having identified some flaws in Friedman’s definition of a ‘company’, this essay will now turn to problems in his conception of what constitutes non-profit based goal or objective. Friedman argues that “responsi­bility is to … make as much money as possible while con­forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.''[9] This is contradictory since ‘ethical custom’ could include a range of moral objectives and values. It can be argued that following these customs will not always maximise company profits, or even may damage them. For example, not lying is an ethical custom, and outside of fraud laws, one is not mandated to tell the truth. However, telling the truth might reduce the company’s profits. For example, imagine a CEO is in negotiations with two companies. She instructs her secretary to lie one of those firms about why she cannot meet with them, when in fact she is conferencing with their rival, this would be legal, but not ethical. Following the ethical custom of honesty would, however, weaken the firm’s negotiation position. If Friedman believes the CEO should be compelled by ethical custom to tell the truth, what is the distinction between this behaviour and the CEO making environmental goals a condition of the tender? Friedman thus contradicts himself here by conceding that there are some cases where a firm should not seek to maximise profitability.

Thirdly, Friedman concedes that there are some unclear cases where profit may or may not conflict with other goals[10], but massively underestimates how often this might occur. This is significant because it makes his advice to executives impractical. Friedman only considers the case where doing some social good may improve your brand image. For example, some banks refuse to lend to fossil fuel projects, which, while does reduce their immediate profits, helps improve their image with current and potential future employees. There are, however, other instances: For example, the government sets baseline standards for non-discrimination in hiring staff but firms often have diversity policies that exceed this because workers value working alongside colleagues that reflect the society which they live in. A more diverse workforce increases company productivity, leading to long term profitability. Moreover, as David Rodin argued in “The Ownership Model of Business Ethics” “the separation of long-term profitability and the social good becomes arbitrary” especially since the “viability of society and the environment are central to the performance of firms over time”[11]. As such, Friedman’s strict distinction between profit and other goals is difficult for firms, directors and executives to uphold.

Finally, Friedman also makes an argument about efficacy. He states that many executives do not know how to truly bring social good, and therefore, they should not attempt doing so. Milton uses the example of an executive told to fight inflation:[12] “He is told that he must contribute to fighting inflation. How is he to know what ac-tion of his will contribute to that end?... But nothing about his selection makes him an expert on inflation. Will his hold-ing down the price of his product reduce infla­tionary pressure?”[13] This argument is spurious, as inflation is unlikely to be combated by individual firms lowering the prices of their goods. There are, however, other examples where corporate change is possible. For example, executives are likely to know how to decarbonise within their industry, and also would know that such a change would improve the environment.

For example, Google has been carbon neutral for two years now, their data centres use 50 percent less energy than comparable facilities and their ‘campuses’ are made from sustainable materials[14]. Google thus chose to forgo immediate profits to pursue an objective that was not required by law. But more importantly, Google were clearly effective: as a major energy-using corporation they cut emissions in California in a non-negligible way. Their actions have also set the standard for their industry.[15] Even if other firms are not experts on how to have an environmental impact, they can hire consultants to help their decisions. Moreover, logically, if people working at a firm suspected their socially-minded actions would not have an impact, it is unlikely they would risk profits, even in the short term. In reality, this debate is confined to cases where the benefits of a socially just decision are probable and measurable.

On the issue of efficacy, Friedman argues that the government has set basic ‘ethical’ regulations on companies, and will continue to do when a problem, such as global warming, become more serious.[16] However, this contradicts the views Friedman has articulated in his broader scholarship, that governments are often not best placed to act and misunderstand the needs of wider society. Additionally, the government can be short-sighted when making regulatory decisions, since they are focussed on winning elections every few years. This means radical action will not happen soon enough for issues such as global warming. Corporations have short term incentives too, of course, like annual earnings targets, but they also have an interest in the long term. For example, companies are actually incentivised to reduce their negative impact on the environment because they recognise the long-term viability of their business is dependent on a healthy ecosystem.

Friedman argues that it is undemocratic to impose social obligations and moral preferences that are not legally enforced since this goes against the will of the majority in a society. Rather, he also calls on socially-minded executives to lobby for change in the electorate or legislature.[17] However, this option is not very realistic. In his conception massive corporations are unable to bring about change, so why would individuals, like socially-minded executives, be better placed to do so? Individuals have fewer resources and power compared to corporations, so lobbying for change is more challenging and less likely to yield results. In addition, it is not likely that executives could both effectively argue for social change and continue to work at a firm that undermines it. For instance, it would be odd for the CEO of a firm that does not hire any women as senior executives to call for quotas to be imposed. Or, let us assume, these executives will be successful. By this logic, powerful and wealthy individuals who perform moral actions that are not required by law could also be viewed as anti-democratic since they are imposing their values on an unwilling polity.

Milton Friedman was undoubtedly an incredible economist, and his work has had an immense impact on public policy. However, Friedman was unable to predict the complex role of morality in contemporary business and the blurring of the difference between profit and social good. Especially in a status quo where society faces issues such as global warming and structural inequality, it is important that firms do more than seek profit.

Footnotes

1 Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, located at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060207060807/https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html, accessed 1/06/2019.

2 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.

3 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.

4 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.
5 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.
6 Asher Schechter, “Why Friedman Was Wrong”, in “It’s time to rethink Milton Friedman’s shareholder argument’, Chicago Booth Review Online, 07/12/17, https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/it-s-time-rethink-milton-friedman-sshareholder-value-argument
7 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.

8 Lynn A. Stout,, "The Shareholder Value Myth" (2013). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 771. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/771

9 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.

10 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.
11 David Rodin, The Ownership Model of Business Ethics. Metaphilosophy Vol 36, No 1-2, (2005) 163–181.
12 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.
13 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.

14 Google, “Environment Projects”, n.d., located at: https://sustainability.google/environment/, accessed 15/07/2019.
15 Ibid.
16 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.
17 Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business”, op cit.

Bibliography

Friedman, Milton,“The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”, The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970, located at: https://web.archive.org/web/20060207060807/https://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertaria ns/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html, accessed 1/06/2019.

Google, “Environment Projects”, n.d., located at: https://sustainability.google/environment/, accessed 15/07/2019.

Schechter, Asher, “Why Friedman Was Wrong”, in “It’s time to rethink Milton Friedman’s shareholder argument’, Chicago Booth Review Online, 07/12/17, https://review.chicagobooth.edu/economics/2017/article/it-s-time-rethink-milton-friedman-sshareholder-value-argument, accessed 16/07/2019

Stout, Lynn A., "The Shareholder Value Myth" (2013). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 771. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/771, accessed 16/07/2019.

Rodin, David, The Ownership Model of Business Ethics. Metaphilosophy Vol 36, No 1-2, (2005) 163–181.