GE105-UVYZ Social Ethics – Individual Paper (30%)
Please write an essay around 1000 (+/- 100) words (either in Chinese or English) on ONE of
the following topics. You will be assessed on:
1. How well you structure the problem
2. Your ability to address the issue critically
3. How strong your argument is
4. Organization, language, etc.
Remarks:
1. Format
a. Citation and bibliography are required.
b. Use a consistent writing and citation format (e.g. Chicago, APA) throughout
your entire essay.
You may refer to the following websites for quick reference:
http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/home.html
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/
c. Use reliable academic resources. Do NOT refer to yahoo knowledge,
Wikipedia, etc.
d. State clearly the essential information:
name, student ID, essay topic, etc., if you miss any of the above information,
marks will be deducted. (Refer to the following sample)
e. Type your essay.
f. Submit via Moodle.
g. Convert your file format into PDF. Only PDF file could be uploaded.
h. Use the following file name format “Your Student No. Your Name (Surname
first), question no.pdf” for example: “20100XXX CHAN Tai Man Q2.pdf”,
“20100XXX NG Sik Do Q3.pdf”
i. Marks will be seriously deduced if your information is in the wrong format,
and/ or you fail to provide essential information, page numbers, etc.
2. Submission deadline: 23:59 2nd Dec 2021
1
a. Late submission will receive penalty of 3 marks (out of 30) deduction within
the first overdue week, and you will not be marked if your submission is
overdue for more than one week (i.e. 9th Dec 2021).
b. Behold, the deadline is NOT 00:00!
Topics:
Q1. 對天主教環保觀之我見:
1.
現今香港/世界面對的生態環境問題
2.
天主教對生態危機問題之觀點及建議
3.
你個人對天主教立場的回應和意見
Q2. 論「躺平」是否道德的生活 ﹙或道德地生活﹚。
（一）如何理解「道德的生活﹙或道德地生活﹚」的涵意？（400 字）
（二）如何分析及對「躺平」作「道德評價」？（400 字）
（三） 您個人的理性批判。（200 字）
Q2. On whether ‘lying flat’ is a kind of moral life (or living morally) or not.
1) How to understand the connotation of ‘moral life’ or ‘living morally’? (400 words)
2) How to analyze ‘lying flat’ and make moral evaluations to this concept? (400 words)
3) Your personal rational critique. (200 words)
2
Q3. 孟子遊說梁惠王：“獨樂樂不如眾樂樂”——愈多人獲得快樂愈好，這近似享樂型效益主
義的觀點。翌日，梁惠王便命令大臣深入討論孟子的意見，其中一位（大臣甲）支持享樂
型效益主義，另一位（大臣乙）則反對。試用對話的形式寫出這兩位大臣對享樂型效益主
義的說明和辨正。
寫作提示：
一、你寫的內容可以包括歷史背景，但此部分絕非必要。歷史背景寫多、寫少，甚至
不寫可自行決定。
二、對話可以適當地加入其他角色，例如大王或其他大臣，令對話更自然流暢。不過
整體對話的重點必須是有關支持和反對享樂型效益主義的論辯。你當然可以提及孟子
之言，但是更可以進而討論其他例子。
三、由於是對話，你的文字不用文縐縐（更不要扮古人說話），完全可以運用適量口
語甚至俗語。
四、如不用對話形式，成績減五分。
Q3. Mencius once persuaded the King Hui of Liang not to enjoy music alone, but to share it
with the people——that more people get the pleasure of listening to music is preferable is an
example close to hedonistic utilitarianism. The following day the King ordered his senior
officials to discuss Mencius’s view in depth. One of them (Official A) supports hedonistic
utilitarianism while another one (Official B) opposes it. Write a set of dialogues (around 1,000
words) between the two officials about their positions as well as their debate on the topic.
Tips on your writing:
1. The inclusion of historical details in your dialogues is okay but totally unnecessary, that is,
it is optional and it is all up to your decision.
2. You may include other people, e.g. the King or other officials in your dialogues to
facilitate the flow of the conversation but the focus of your writing must be the debate on
hedonistic utilitarianism, with a possible reference to, but need not be limited to, Mencius’s
view.
3. Since your writing is a set of dialogues, the language need not be too formal and you may
even involve some modern colloquial terms.
4. Five points will be deducted if you are not writing in the dialogue format.
3
SAMPLE
Caritas Institute of Higher Education
Fall Term 2021-2022
Course: GE 105 Social Ethics
Instructor: Frederic Koon / Dr. Andrew Lam
Name: CHAN Tai Man (nick name)
Student ID: 20100XXXX
Date: 2nd Dec 2021
Q3. De Sola Voluptate (Put down question number and title here)
[Paragraph 1]
This is a sample about foot note.1
[Paragraph 2]
Don’t forget page number, and word count.
[Paragraph 3]
Please use the file name “Student No. Your Name, Question No.pdf” For example
“20100XXXX CHAN Tai Man Q3.pdf”
(50 words)
Bibliography:
Williams, Bernard, and J. J. C. Smart. Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge:
Cambridge, 1973.
Wolf, Susan. “Moral Saints.” Journal of Philosophy, 79 (1982): 419-39.
1
Bernard Williams and J. J. C. Smart, Utilitarianism: For and Against, (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1973), 93-98.
4