Category: Blogs

The Science and Technology category in the 2026 John Locke Essay Competition presents three deceptively simple questions. Together, they converge on a shared philosophical concern: in an era of accelerating technological change, how should we redefine the boundaries of value, knowledge, and moral responsibility?

These questions probe the tension between free speech and scientific authority, the civilizational meaning of space exploration, and the ethical relationship between humans and artificial intelligence.

2026 Science & Technology Questions Analysis

Q1. Is free speech the enemy of science?

This question touches one of the most sensitive tensions in modern society: what happens when freedom of expression conflicts with scientific truth?

Core Structure of the Problem

At its core, the question asks: what kind of social environment does science require to function properly?

The term “enemy” suggests not just tension but deep structural opposition. Two competing models can be identified:

Model A: Free speech as a threat to science
Free speech allows anti-scientific or pseudoscientific ideas to circulate. This may lead to vaccine refusal, climate change denial, or rejection of evolutionary theory, resulting in public harm and erosion of scientific authority.

Model B: Restrictions on speech as a threat to science
If scientific institutions suppress dissenting or unpopular views, even misguided ones, they risk undermining the methodological foundation of science itself: open criticism, doubt, and revision.

Key Theoretical Resource

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty remains foundational. Mill distinguishes between expert knowledge and non-expert testimonial belief. The public depends on experts, but cannot always evaluate competing claims independently.

David Wright (2025) extends this argument: if non-experts cannot distinguish between false and suppressed ideas, then suppressing even incorrect views may weaken trust in science itself.

Historical Perspective

From Copernicus to Darwin to Pasteur, many now-established scientific truths were once treated as heresy. This raises a central epistemic question: today’s “error” may become tomorrow’s “truth”.

Empirical Evidence

Palladini (2025) finds that academics who express controversial views suffer measurable penalties in citations and productivity, violating Mertonian norms of universalism in science.

Burgess (2025) shows that self-censorship among academics often exceeds actual external censorship, suggesting internalized constraint is a major factor in limiting scientific discourse.

Boundary Problem: Is Free Speech Absolute?

International human rights law, including Article 19 of the ICCPR, permits certain restrictions on speech for reasons such as public safety and health. The key issue is determining where legitimate limits end.

Robert French proposes a useful distinction:

• Criticism of ideas should be protected
• Attacks on individuals may be restricted
• Scientific disagreement should remain open
• Personal defamation may justify limits

Writing Strategies

• Compare US free speech absolutism with European regulatory models
• Analyze algorithmic amplification and misinformation in digital platforms
• Develop a three-tier framework: tolerance, rebuttal, and restriction under harm conditions

Research Keywords

academic freedom
Mertonian norms
scientific dissent
Mill On Liberty
epistemic justification

Recommended Reading

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (Chapter 2: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion)
David Wright, “Mill’s Social Epistemic Rationale for Freedom of Speech” (2025)

Get a Free List of eBooks

Q2. Is space exploration a necessity or an indulgence?

This question, debated since Sputnik in 1957, has regained urgency with commercial spaceflight and renewed geopolitical competition.

Defining the Terms

Necessity refers to something required for survival or essential development:

• Preventing existential risks
• Accessing critical resources
• Expanding human knowledge

Indulgence refers to excessive spending for limited collective benefit:

• Elite-driven space tourism
• Opportunity costs versus Earth-based problems
• Prestige-driven national projects

Arguments for Necessity

Existential risk insurance
Earth is vulnerable to asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, pandemics, and ecological collapse. Space colonization provides species-level insurance.

Resource expansion
Asteroids contain vast quantities of valuable metals. Some estimates suggest a single metallic asteroid could exceed Earth’s known reserves of certain elements.

Innovation spillover
Research from Columbia Business School (2025) finds NASA-related research increases citation rates by up to 63% and patent impact by up to 82% in collaborative settings.

Civilizational drive
Human history suggests exploration is a defining feature of civilizational progress.

Arguments for Indulgence

Opportunity cost
NASA’s Artemis program is estimated at $93 billion. These resources could address global poverty, malnutrition, or healthcare systems.

Inequality and access
Space exploration is currently dominated by wealthy states and private corporations, raising concerns about uneven benefit distribution.

Environmental and ethical concerns
Space debris, orbital pollution, and planetary contamination raise serious sustainability questions.

Reframing the Debate

Rather than a binary choice, a layered framework may be more appropriate:

• Essential: satellites, Earth monitoring, planetary defense
• Contested: deep space exploration, resource extraction research
• Indulgent: space tourism and symbolic colonization projects

Space exploration may be best understood as a “necessary luxury”: costly in the short term but potentially transformative in the long term.

Writing Strategies

• Compare space exploration with historical exploration eras (Age of Discovery)
• Apply Hannah Arendt’s concept of “earth alienation”
• Introduce the idea of “necessary luxury” as a synthesis

Research Keywords

space ethics
opportunity cost
overview effect
space colonization
space resources

Recommended Reading

James S. J. Schwartz, The Value of Space Science (2023)
Marcia S. Smith (ed.), Space Exploration: Economics, Ethics, and Policy (2022)

Get a Free List of eBooks

Q3. Should we be polite to ChatGPT?

This question appears simple but raises fundamental issues in AI ethics: what does politeness mean when directed at non-conscious systems?

What Is Politeness Directed At?

Traditional politeness assumes:

• The other party has emotions
• The other party interprets social signals
• The interaction is reciprocal
• Both parties have moral standing

ChatGPT satisfies none of these conditions.

Three Possible Models

1. Projection model
Humans naturally attribute minds and emotions to interactive systems.

2. Self-shaping model
Politeness toward AI may function as moral training, shaping long-term human behavior.

3. Future-oriented model
Politeness may prepare norms for future systems with higher levels of intelligence or agency.

Do We Have a Moral Obligation?

Current AI systems:

• Do not experience consciousness
• Do not possess subjective experience
• Do not have moral patienthood

Therefore, there is no direct moral obligation toward AI itself.

However, indirect considerations remain:

• Behavioral spillover into human interactions
• Respect toward developers and communication norms
• Maintaining clarity and epistemic discipline

A Layered Ethical Framework

Level 1: No strict moral duty, but practical reasons for politeness

• Improves clarity and cooperation
• Supports cognitive discipline
• Encourages structured communication

Level 2: Risks of over-anthropomorphism

• Misleading perception of AI consciousness
• Over-trust in generated outputs

Level 3: Redefining AI interaction norms

• Prioritize clarity over ritual politeness
• Emphasize epistemic responsibility
• Treat AI interaction as structured reasoning rather than social exchange

Writing Strategies

• Compare AI etiquette with historical debates on moral extension (animals, servants)
• Cross-cultural comparison: Confucian “li” versus Western contractual politeness
• Empirical angle: does AI interaction affect human empathy over time?

Research Keywords

AI ethics
anthropomorphism
human-AI interaction
moral patiency
digital etiquette

Recommended Reading

Shannon Vallor, Technology and the Virtues (2016)
Mike Dacey, “Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias” (2017)

Get a Free List of eBooks

The Underlying Connection Between the Three Questions

Although the three questions appear distinct, they share a common philosophical structure: each forces us to reconsider boundaries in a rapidly transforming technological world.

• Science vs speech: epistemic authority vs openness
• Earth vs space: finite resources vs infinite expansion
• Humans vs AI: biological intelligence vs artificial intelligence

In each case, simple binaries collapse. Free speech and science must be balanced rather than opposed. Space exploration may be neither necessity nor luxury, but a “necessary luxury”. Politeness toward AI is not a moral duty but a form of cognitive self-discipline.

This reflects the essence of the John Locke Essay Competition: not producing definitive answers, but demonstrating depth, clarity, and originality of thought.

The strongest essays often do not end with certainty, but with more refined questions than those with which they began.

Simply scan the QR code via WeChat to get started.

Registration for the 2026 John Locke Essay Competition opened on February 2. All participants must complete registration by March 31, 2026 (GMT).

This year’s economics questions invite students to engage deeply with real-world issues. Below is a structured breakdown of the prompts, recommended approaches, and foundational knowledge to guide your preparation.

2026 Economics Questions Analysis

Q1: Should we fear a cashless society?

From Bitcoin to central bank digital currencies, monetary innovation has accelerated rapidly. In many developed economies, cash usage is steadily declining. In China, mobile payment systems such as Alipay and WeChat Pay have already reshaped consumer habits, especially among younger generations.

Possible approaches:

• Examine the historical evolution of money and assess whether its core functions change in a cashless society.
• Analyze how electronic payments influence modern consumption behavior.
• Evaluate whether digital currencies could replace physical cash as the dominant medium of exchange.
• Consider the implications for central banks, including both advantages and challenges for monetary policy implementation.

Key concepts:
Definition and functions of money
History of money
Monetary policy
Monetary tools
Personal finance

Recommended reading:
The Future of Money by Eswar S. Prasad
The Curse of Cash by Kenneth S. Rogoff

Get a Free List of eBooks

Q2: Technology now allows personalised pricing. If this came to be widely used, what effects should we expect?

Technological progress reshapes markets, but not always in ways that benefit consumers. Perfect price discrimination was once considered unrealistic, yet personal devices and data tracking have made it increasingly feasible. Cases of algorithmic price discrimination are already widely discussed.

Possible approaches:

• Use stakeholder analysis to evaluate impacts on consumers, firms, and platforms.
• Reassess market structures and how technology may disrupt traditional classifications.
• Explore the ethical implications of personalised pricing in business contexts.
• Apply behavioral economics to examine how bounded rationality interacts with data-driven pricing strategies.

Key concepts:
Price discrimination
Market structure
Business objectives
Business ethics
Behavioral economics
Information failure

Recommended reading:
Misbehaving by Richard H. Thaler
Platform Revolution by Sangeet Paul Choudary
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism
Virtual Competition

Get a Free List of eBooks

Q3: Did Jeff Bezos get rich at the expense of his customers, his employees, neither, or both?

Billionaires often inspire both admiration and criticism. Jeff Bezos built Amazon from an online bookstore into one of the most powerful global retail platforms.

Possible approaches:

• Evaluate whether wealth accumulation necessarily involves trade-offs with stakeholders.
• Assess whether Bezos’ success reflects value creation or exploitation.
• Analyze the case through different theoretical lenses, such as Marxist critiques of capitalism versus Weber’s concept of disciplined, rational entrepreneurship.

Key concepts:
Economic systems
Business ethics
Entrepreneurship

Recommended reading:
Amazon Unbound: Jeff Bezos and the Invention of a Global Empire
Capital in the Twenty-First Century
Invent and Wander
The Value of Everything
Bourgeois Dignity
The Wealth of Nations
The Culture of the New Capitalism

Get a Free List of eBooks

How to Stand Out in the John Locke Competition

Strong English reading and writing skills are essential. High-quality essays demonstrate:

• Clear and well-supported arguments
• Logical structure and coherence
• Originality and independent thinking
• Effective use of evidence
• Persuasive writing style

According to the official guidelines, the best essays are those capable of changing the reader’s perspective. Essays that fail to address counterarguments are unlikely to succeed. Strong output is built on extensive reading and critical thinking.

The competition also strictly enforces rules against plagiarism, ghostwriting, and overreliance on AI tools. While AI may be used as a research aid or for idea testing, it must not replace original human authorship.

Who Should Apply

The competition is well suited for students who:

• Have strong English reading and writing abilities
• Enjoy writing and intellectual exploration
• Are curious and willing to investigate complex questions
• Are committed to extensive reading
• Value the learning process as much as the outcome

2026 Competition Rules and Timeline

The John Locke Essay Competition is organized by the John Locke Institute, an independent educational organization based in Oxford, in collaboration with academics from leading universities such as Oxford, Princeton, Brown, and the University of Buckingham. The program aims to develop independent thinking, depth of knowledge, clear reasoning, critical analysis, and persuasive writing.

Eligibility
Senior Category: Age 15–18 (must be 18 or younger at submission)
Junior Category: Age 14 or below

Timeline
February 2, 2026: Questions released and registration opens
March 31, 2026: Registration deadline
May 31, 2026: Submission deadline
June 7, 2026: Late submission (7 days, £25 fee)
June 21, 2026: Extended late submission (21 days, £75 fee)
July 7, 2026: Shortlist announcement
October 2–4, 2026: Academic conference
October 3, 2026: Awards dinner

Submission Requirements

Word limit: Up to 2,000 words per essay (excluding charts, tables, footnotes, bibliography, and author declaration). Multiple submissions across disciplines are allowed.

Content expectations: Essays are evaluated based on subject knowledge, understanding of relevant materials, effective use of evidence, quality of argumentation, structure, writing style, and persuasiveness.

Referencing: Recommended sources include Google Scholar, JSTOR, Our World in Data, PubMed, government documents, and think tank reports. Citation styles may include footnotes, APA, or MLA.

AI policy: AI tools may assist with research and idea development but must not replace original writing. The competition uses methods to detect AI-generated content and rewards authentic, original thought.

Awards

Grand Prize: One winner receives a $10,000 scholarship for John Locke Institute programs.

Subject Prizes: Winner, Second Prize, and Third Prize in each category receive $2,000 scholarships.

High Commendations: Awarded to other outstanding submissions.

Success in the John Locke Essay Competition depends not only on writing ability but also on intellectual curiosity, depth of reading, and the capacity for independent thought.

Simply scan the QR code via WeChat to get started.

The 2026 John Locke Essay Competition has officially released its prompts. To help students clarify their thinking and develop strong writing directions, Hanlin mentors present a comprehensive breakdown of the History category—along with recommended readings.

Registration for the 2026 competition opened on February 2. All participants must complete registration before March 31, 2026 (GMT).

Each year, the History category offers some of the most intellectually demanding questions. This year is no exception. The three prompts explore themes ranging from the myth of moral progress, to the fate of knowledge in the Library of Alexandria, to the paradox of Che Guevara as a global icon. At their core, all three questions ask: How do we narrate history, and how do those narratives shape us?

Question 1

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Is it? Does it?

This question challenges what appears to be a self-evident truth. The phrase originated with Theodore Parker in 1853, who framed it as an act of faith rather than proof. Later, Martin Luther King Jr. quoted it with caution, while modern political rhetoric has transformed it into a confident assertion.

A strong approach is not to simply argue whether justice inevitably prevails, but to analyze how the idea of “inevitable progress” has been constructed—and whose interests it serves.

Key analytical directions:

• Justice as a product of human struggle rather than historical inevitability
• Critiques of progress narratives from marginalized perspectives
• The transformation of theological belief into political ideology

Three argument pathways:

1. Theological–Political Critique
   Examine how religious ideas of destiny have been reframed as historical certainty.
2. Victim-Centered Perspective
   Argue that progress narratives often exclude those who continue to suffer systemic injustice.
3. Institutional Design Approach
   Shift focus from abstract progress to concrete systems that produce justice.

For your convenience, we have curated a selection of classic and practical literature and books to share; additional titles may be consulted based on your individual interests and needs.

Scan the WeChat Code to Get the Booklist for Free  

Question 2

What might the world look like if the Library of Alexandria didn’t burn down?

This is not truly a counterfactual history question. Instead, it is about the sociology of knowledge.

The destruction of the Library is often romanticized as a single catastrophic event. In reality, knowledge loss was gradual, shaped by material, economic, and cultural forces.

Core insight:

Knowledge is not simply destroyed—it is filtered, forgotten, and replaced.

Key analytical directions:

• The transition from papyrus to parchment as a knowledge filter
• Economic and religious influences on which texts were preserved
• The myth of a “lost golden age” of knowledge

Three argument pathways:

1. Meta-Historical Critique
   Challenge the assumption that knowledge accumulates linearly.
2. Media Determinism
   Analyze how material forms of knowledge storage shape intellectual history.
3. Sociology of Knowledge
   Explore why modern society is so invested in the myth of the Library’s destruction. 

   For your convenience, we have curated a selection of classic and practical literature and books to share; additional titles may be consulted based on your individual interests and needs.

Scan the WeChat Code to Get the Booklist for Free  

Question 3

Does Che deserve his iconic T-shirt?

This question is not about whether Che Guevara was morally good or bad. It is about whether his image deserves its iconic status.

The famous photograph by Alberto Korda has become one of the most reproduced images in history, appearing across fashion, advertising, and global youth culture.

Core insight:

Che Guevara is no longer just a historical figure—he is a symbol.

Key analytical directions:

• The commercialization of revolutionary imagery
• The transformation of political figures into cultural symbols
• The instability of meaning in widely reproduced images

Three argument pathways:

1. Critical Approach (Image as Theft)
   Argue that capitalism and consumer culture have appropriated and depoliticized Che’s image.
2. Defensive Approach (Symbolic Freedom)
   Suggest that meaning is created by users, not controlled by historical accuracy.
3. Diagnostic Approach (Age of Simulacra)
   Analyze how modern media transforms historical figures into self-referential symbols.

For your convenience, we have curated a selection of classic and practical literature and books to share; additional titles may be consulted based on your individual interests and needs.

Scan the WeChat Code to Get the Booklist for Free  

Key Writing Strategy

Top essays in the John Locke Competition go beyond knowledge—they demonstrate intellectual independence and analytical depth.

• Question 1: Connect philosophy with historical reality
• Question 2: Move beyond surface-level counterfactuals
• Question 3: Analyze symbols rather than individuals

Judges value clarity, originality, and strong argumentation.

Recommended Research Topics

• Philosophy of history
• Historiography and narrative construction
• Sociology of knowledge
• Media theory and cultural symbols
• Political ideology and memory

This analysis of the John Locke History essay questions was provided by Mr. Shen from Hanlin Education.

Mr. Shen is an AP-certified teacher with a Master of Teaching (Secondary Education) from the University of Melbourne and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Sydney. He is a registered Humanities teacher in Victoria, Australia, and a state-level judge for the National History Challenge.

Since 2020, he has guided numerous students to achieve awards such as Very High Commendation and Commendation in the John Locke Essay Competition. His students have also gained admission to top institutions such as Princeton University.

If you would like to learn more about the John Locke Essay Competition or receive personalized guidance, you are welcome to consult with Hanlin advisors.

Simply scan the QR code via WeChat to get started.

On February 2, the official organizers of the John Locke Institute released all essay prompts for the 2026 competition season, along with updated timelines and competition rules.

Major Updates for the 2026 Season

1. Three New Categories Added

The competition has expanded from 7 to 10 categories. The full list now includes:
Politics, Economics, History, Philosophy, Law, Theology, Psychology, Public Policy (new), Science & Technology (new), and International Relations (new).

2. Junior Category Rule Changes

• Junior participants may now answer any question across all categories
• Junior submissions will be evaluated separately within age groups

2026 Competition Timeline

• Registration Deadline: March 31, 2026
• Submission Deadline: May 31, 2026
• Late Submission Options:
  • June 7, 2026 (7-day extension, £25 fee)
  • June 21, 2026 (21-day extension, £75 fee)
• Shortlist Notification: July 7, 2026
• Academic Conference: October 2–4, 2026
• Awards Dinner: October 3, 2026

Scan the WeChat QR code to consult with John Locke!

Law Category Essay Questions: Deep Analysis

Question 1

If legislators and judges all accepted the philosophical theory of determinism, what would be the effect on criminal sentencing?

This question places criminal law under a philosophical lens. Determinism suggests that all human actions are shaped by prior causes, challenging the concept of free will.

Core tension: Retributivism vs. Utilitarianism

• Traditional sentencing assumes individuals make free choices and deserve punishment
• Determinism reframes crime as the result of genetics, environment, and psychology

Possible implications for sentencing:

• Shift from punishment to rehabilitation
• Indeterminate sentencing based on risk rather than fixed terms
• Greater focus on social and environmental intervention

Suggested angles:

• Compatibilism as a middle ground
• Classical vs. positivist schools of criminal law
• Neuroscience and legal responsibility

Strong essays should argue that sentencing would not disappear, but rather transform—from moral blame to risk management and public health logic.

Get a Free List of eBooks

Question 2

To what extent should criminal sentencing take into account the effect on the perpetrator’s family?

This question explores a major ethical dilemma: should justice focus only on the offender, or also consider broader social consequences?

Three analytical dimensions:

1. Victim Perspective Conflict
   • Supporting family consideration: avoids creating “secondary victims”
   • Opposing: risks diluting justice for victims
2. Real Judicial Practice
   • Judges often implicitly consider family impact
   • However, such factors are rarely formalized in sentencing guidelines
3. Systemic Fairness Issues
   • Could create inequality between social classes
   • May advantage defendants with stable family structures

Recommended strategy:
Apply the principle of proportionality—family impact may matter more in minor crimes and less in severe offenses. Consider how such factors could be standardized to avoid arbitrariness.

Get a Free List of eBooks

Question 3

Is trial by jury obsolete?

This is a highly debated institutional question requiring nuanced analysis.

Arguments for “obsolete”:

• Jury trials are increasingly rare (“vanishing trial” phenomenon)
• Plea bargaining dominates modern legal systems
• Jurors may struggle with complex cases
• Bias and media influence threaten neutrality
• High cost and inefficiency

Arguments against:

• Essential for democratic participation
• Enhances transparency and legitimacy
• Jury nullification as a safeguard against unjust laws
• Collective decision-making reduces individual bias
• Increasing adoption of citizen participation in global systems

Advanced perspective:

Rather than arguing for or against, strong essays explore institutional evolution. Consider reforms such as:

• Allowing juror note-taking
• Expert explanations during trials
• Hybrid systems combining judges and lay participants

The most compelling argument views the jury not as outdated, but as adapting to modern pressures.

Get a Free List of eBooks

Key Writing Strategy

Winning essays in the John Locke Competition demonstrate more than knowledge—they show intellectual depth and originality.

• Question 1: Bridge philosophy and legal systems
• Question 2: Balance ethical reasoning with practical frameworks
• Question 3: Analyze institutions dynamically across time

Judges look for clarity, evidence, and the ability to construct a strong, independent argument.

Recommended Research Topics

• Philosophy of criminal law
• Sentencing guidelines
• Restorative justice
• Comparative jury systems
• Legal realism
• Judicial discretion

The above analysis of the John Locke Law essay questions was provided by Mr. Shen from Hanlin Education.

Mr. Shen is an AP-certified teacher and holds a Master of Teaching (Secondary Education) from the University of Melbourne, as well as a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Sydney. He is a registered teacher in Humanities disciplines in the state of Victoria, Australia, including History, Politics, Geography, Economics, Religion, and Ethics. He also serves as a state-level judge for the National History Challenge (Australia’s equivalent of National History Day), with deep familiarity in the evaluation criteria of international humanities competitions.

Selected Coaching Achievements:

• Since 2020, Mr. Shen has consistently guided dozens of students each year to achieve awards such as Very High Commendation and Commendation in the John Locke Essay Competition. One of his students in the psychology category was successfully admitted to Princeton University.
• In 2022, he mentored students in the Australian National History Challenge, helping them advance to the regional finals.
• He has also helped students pass the SCAT (School and College Ability Test) for gifted youth, enabling their admission to summer programs at Johns Hopkins University.

Competition Overview

The John Locke Essay Competition is organized by the John Locke Institute, in collaboration with scholars from leading universities such as Oxford and Princeton. The competition aims to cultivate independent thinking, depth of knowledge, and persuasive writing skills among young scholars.

Eligibility

• Senior Category: Ages 15–18
• Junior Category: Age 14 and under

Participants may submit essays in multiple categories, but each essay must not exceed 2000 words (excluding references and appendices).

Submission Requirements

Essays are evaluated based on:

• Understanding of the topic
• Use of evidence
• Quality of argument
• Structure and clarity
• Writing style and persuasiveness

Accepted citation formats include APA, MLA, or footnotes.

AI Usage Policy

Participants may use AI tools to support research and idea development, but must not rely on them to generate final essays. Original thinking and authentic writing remain essential, and evaluation systems are designed to detect non-original work.

Awards

• Grand Prize: $10,000 scholarship
• Category Winners: $2,000 scholarship
• High Commendations for outstanding submissions

If you would like to learn more details about the John Locke Essay Competition, you are welcome to scan the QR code to consult with one of our advisors.

Simply scan the QR code via WeChat to get started.