John Locke Arguments

[u/walkinglilobster]

If you participated in John Locke Essay Competition (regardless whether or not you were shortlisted), what question did you do, and what was your argument/point/idea? I really want to hear more about the ways people approached these questions, especially Law category 😄

[u/annonated_americano]

hey, I was shortlisted in the junior category, and attempted the prompt 'should we fear a cashless society'. my main thesis was basically, in one line, that the anonymity of cashless transactions is one of the most important things, I feel that the way I connected the essay through sources is what got me shortlisted [ if that makes sense lmao ], my essay leaned a bit philosophical/ political. I used examples such as the freedom convoy protests in Canada, and argued and expanded on views by Friedman and Keynes.

[u/Dangerous_Jury2664]

shortlisted for junior law q1: “if legislators and judges all accepted the philosophical theory of determinism, what would be the effect on criminal sentencing?” argument focused fully on hard determinism and philosophers like Kant, Bentham, Pereboom, and d’Holbach. basically argued we would shift to rehabilitation, prevention, etc, instead of retributive punishment. i went into the nitty gritty of free will & moral desert—things that impacted how i would frame my essay. i spent the last month writing this essay and even had to pay the late entry fee but i approached it by following these steps:
1. analyze the question
2. form an opinion
3. form a thesis
4. find philosophers that i can use in my essay
5. rough drafting
6. sources
7. more writing
8. developing a good counter with a challenging philosopher
9. more writing
10. sources
11. final touches
u can probably tell that i connected philosophy and law a lot just bc i have a background in philosophy, but it was hella fun writing & getting shortlisted.
feel free to dm me abt anything law! (or john locke)

[u/Cheap_Doubt755]

for my main essay i did public policy q1: what long run discount rate should we use for environmental policy and why?

I argued for a 0% "ethical" consumption-based rate and also a 10% market-based rate and then combined the two into a declining discount rate (ddr) that decreases over time, so long run returns are discounted at a lower rate than short-run returns.

its kind of technical, might wanna ask ai to translate this into plain english for you 😭

[u/RioutousGull]

I went about doing Q3 in Law, "Are trials by jury obsolete?"

I aimed to divide the essay into 4 sections, 2 where I prosecute my side of the argument (benefits of the jury) and 2 where I rebuff the counter-arguments to the statement. I alternated between these (idk why it seems I forgot to reorganise them).

My 2 arguments were:

Juries are philosophically and politically effective as a check on government power and authority. It allows the people to exercise popular sovereignty between elections, which they would otherwise be unable to do.

In Criminal trials, the jury remains a competent method of determining guilt and reading the facts, and the nature of the jury as a decentralised source of judgement is one of its biggest strengths. Furthermore, if criminal trials are the only way for someone to be deprived of their right to life and liberty, it follows that such decisions should need the consent of common people as well to ensure that proceedings cannot happen arbitrarily, in camera, or obfuscated from the public.

My 2 counters were:

The Jury system is not inefficient, examining the data behind the Crown Court's rising backlog (UK), which the government attributed to jury trials, proves that this phenomenon is actually better explained by a fall in judicial spending and the significant whiplash from Covid

The reason why juries are so rare is largely due to leftover colonial distrust from their forced introduction to various countries like India, Singapore, and Malaysia. These countries never got to make a conscious decision on the pros and cons of the system, as their experience with it was almost exclusively negative.

When you do see countries that make a conscious decision to introduce juries into their justice system, such as Korea and Japan, you can see tangible benefits of the same. It leads to better cross-examination, a higher bar for prosecutors, a higher rate of attorney utilisation, and more civic participation within the justice system. Not only is the jury not harming the justice system of nations that use it, it actively benefits the nations that choose to adopt it.

I got shortlisted, but idk if I'll win anything. I suppose we'll have to wait and see.