Course Code

Course Title
Offering
Semester
Credit Units
Course
Duration
Course Leader

: POL3315
: Ethics In Government
: Semester A, 2015/16
: 3
: One Semester
:
Email:
hsinwlee@cityu.edu.hk

Office:
Tel:
To Yuen Building, 3442 8900
Block 1, 3B

Course Intended Learning Outcomes (CILOs)

1. Discover and critically assess the relationship between ethics and politics, based on
different theoretical perspectives
2. Acquire analytical skills to critically evaluate ethical responsibilities for problems
of dirty hand and many hands in government and public organizations
3. Discover various sources and modes of ethical dilemmas and moral issues in public
life and politics (such as terrorism, corruption, whistle blowing, lying in public
office etc.) and develop ideas on how to resolve them, especially in the democratic
context.
4. Develop and acquire abilities to critically apply ethical theories to assess moral
problems in the administration of Hong Kong (and Chinese) government and
further apply such abilities in evaluating the governance of global politics
5. Empower each other to cultivate moral judgment that is politically practicable in a
given socioeconomic and political/institutional context
Assessment Tasks
Coursework : 100 %
Attendance & Participation 20%
Group Presentations 20%
Term Paper 30% (with 1,500 words max.)
Final Quiz : 30% (2 hours)
TOTAL: 100%
Academic Honesty
Academic honesty is central to the conduct of academic work. Students are expected to
present their own work, give proper acknowledgement of others work, and honestly report
findings obtained.
Academic dishonesty is regarded as a serious offence in the University. Any related
offence can lead to disciplinary action with a penalty including expulsion from the
University and debarment from re-admission.
1

Extracted from Rules on Academic Honesty, City University of Hong Kong

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/provost/academic_honesty/rules_on_academic_honesty.htm
Minimum Requirement for Passing the Course
Students are required to obtain at least 40% of the coursework marks (i.e. at least grade
D) to pass the course.

Letter
Grade
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD

Grading criteria in relation to CILOs

High standard of understanding, critical assessment of, self-discovery of ethical
dilemmas in public life and their democratic resolutions in various areas of
public policy. Excellent research, writing and communication skills and critical
reasoning.
Fairly good understanding and critical assessment of ethical dilemmas in public
life and their democratic resolutions in various areas of public policy. Ability to
discover and analyze key challenges. Good research, writing and communication
skills.
Rudimentary understanding of ethical dilemmas in public life and basic skills to
discover their democratic resolutions in various areas of public policy. Weak
ability to discover and analyze key challenges. Basic research, writing and
communication skills.
Poor understanding of ethical dilemmas in public life and their democratic
resolutions in various areas of public policy. Very little ability to discover and
analyze key challenges. Weak research, writing and communication skills.
Complete failure to discover and understand ethical dilemmas in public life and
their democratic resolutions in various areas of public policy. Complete failure
to develop an ability to identify key challenges. Inadequate research, writing and
communication skills.

B. LECTURE OUTLINE
Week 1 (September 1)
LT1: Introduction
- Content & Requirements
- Where to find the readings
- Group-presentation matters
Key Concepts:
- What is Ethics/ Morality?
- What is an argument? What is a thesis? What is an objection? How to defend your
thesis?
- The Banality of Evil
2

The Asch Experiment

Milgrams Conformity Experiment
The Stanford Prison Experiment

Week 2 (September 8):

LT2: Deontology and Consequentialism
Readings:
Judith Boss, Analyzing Moral Issues, McGraw-Hill, Fourth Edition, 2008, pp.23-29; 33-35.
(CANVAS)
Michael Sandel, JusticeWhats the Right Thing to Do? Farrar, Straus and Giroux 2009, pp.
31-2. (CANVAS)
Discussion:
[The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens] What happened on Mignonette in the summer of 1884?
Do you think that the captain, Thomas Dudley, did the right thing? What would a
deontologist say? What would a consequentialist say? How would they criticize their
opponents theory? How would they respond to criticisms? As you read the case, put aside
the question of what the law happened to be, and think about the moral question: How do you
judge the actions of Dudley and Stephens? Was it morally justified or morally wrong?

Week 3 (September 15)

LT3: Political Responsibility: The Problem of Dirty Hands
Readings:
(1) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Problem of Dirty Hands.
(2) Michael Walzer, Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands, Philosophy and
Public Affairs 2:2 (1973), pp. 160-180. [E-JOURNAL]
(3) Susan Dovi, Guilt and the Problem of Dirty Hands, Constellations 12:1 (2005), pp.
128-146. [E-JOURNAL]
Discussion:
(A) To end WWII, the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In doing
so, the bombs killed many innocent Japanese noncombatants who were not involved
in the political decision-making of the government. Who is/ are responsible for the
death of those innocent noncombatants? [Are you asking for the evaluative judgment
of the student?] Briefly explain the views from Hierarchical Responsibility, Collective
Responsibility, and Personal Responsibility. What would each theory say about the
party who is responsible for the death of innocent persons?
(B) A man hides a time bomb somewhere near the downtown area. The bomb will be set
off within a couple of hours. You are the mayor, and the policemen have caught the
man who plants the bomb. Would you order the police officers to torture the planter,
if doing so would make him tell the truth and save thousands of innocent lives?
Consider another situation. The bomber would not give you the information you need
even if you torture him. However, he would do so if you torture his 8-year-old
daughter, who knows nothing about the bomb and has no intention to hurt anyone. Is
it morally permissible to torture his daughter? Can it ever be morally permissible to
harm or kill an innocent to save thousands of lives?

Week 4 (September 22)

LT4: Political Responsibility: The Problem of Many Hands
Readings:
(1) Dennis F. Thomson, Democratic Dirty Hands, in Political Ethics and Public Office
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Chapter 1. (Blackboard)
(2) Dennis F. Thomson, Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many
Hands, American Political Science Review 74:4 (1980), pp. 905-914. [*EJOURNAL]
Discussion:
(A) Who is Edward Snowden? What is he known for? How did he become a convicted
criminal in his own country, the U.S.? What do you think about his choice to disclose
the States secret? Is his choice morally right or wrong?
(B) Read/ Watch/ Google Eichmann in Jerusalem. Who is Adolf Eichmann? If
Eichmann was telling the truth, then he never intended to kill any Jews. He merely
followed his superiors orders. He is not responsible for the death of the thousands of
Jews he sent to concentration camps. Is Eichmanns defense sound? What do you
think? Is Eichmann morally responsible for the death of those Jews he sent to
concentration camps? Why or why not?
(C) Should a police officer peppery spray protestors, when the government or a superior
officer order him to do so? What about using water cannon, or even shooting
protestors? What are some relevant considerations in making these decisions?
Describe your view.

Week 5 (September 29)

LT5: Distributive Justice: Egalitarianism vs. Libertarianism
Readings:
(1) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Egalitarianism, sections 1-5.
(2) Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, Utopia, Basic Books, 1974, Chapter 7, section 1, pp.
149-164; 167-178.
(3) Public Reason Game Handout (CANVAS)

Discussion:
(A) Which conception of equality do you think is the most plausibleequality of rights,
opportunities, capabilities, or resources? What is a patterned principle of justice?
How does Robert Nozick criticize the idea of patterned justice? Do you agree with
Nozicks criticisms?
(B) The income gap in Hong Kong has increased dramatically in the past few decades. A
recent survey shows that Hong Kong has the most multimillionaires in the world. In
the meanwhile, more Hong Kongers are living under poverty line. Should the
government take active measurese.g. taxing the rich, raising minimum wage, etc.
to narrow the income gap? Why or why not? What would egalitarians say? What
would Nozick say? Which theory is more suitable for Hong Kong?

Week 6 (October 6)
LT6: Distributive Justice: Liberalism
Readings:
4

(1) Michael Sandel (ed.), JusticeA Reader, Oxford University Press, 2007, Chapter VII
& VIII, pp. 203-221.
(2) John Rawls, Political Liberalism, Columbia University Press, 1996, pp. 212-254.
Discussion:
(A) Should the Hong Kong government adopt a policy that requires companies to offer
health insurance to their employees? What would Nozick say? What would Rawls
say? Which theory do you think is more plausible? Also, the number of students from
high-income families is disproportionately high, while the number of students from
low-income families is low. Does Nozick think that this is a social problem? Does
Rawls think that this is a social problem? Whose view do you think is the more
plausible?
(B) According to a recent report, Nearly 10 percent of [the ultra rich] individuals [in
Hong Kong] made their fortunes through real estate, while almost half of them have
partly inherited their wealth, the report said. Hong Kong prides itself on a free
market economy. On the other hand, unlimited free market economy also seems to
lead to wider and wider income gap. Should the government intervene to narrow the
income gap? What would Robert Nozick say? What would John Rawls say? Which
position do you think is stronger and why? (Source:
http://www.ejinsight.com/20141119-hong-kong-ultra-rich-population-up-5-as-assetsgrow-12/)

Week 7 (October 13)

LT7: Epistocracy
Readings:
(1) John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Harvard University Press, 1971, pp. 74-5.
(2) Michael Rosen & Jonathan Wolff (eds), Political Thought, Oxford University Press,
1999, Chapters 34, pp. 91-94.
(3) David Estlund, Why Not an Epistocracy of the Educated? Democratic Authority: A
Philosophical Framework, Princeton University Press, 2007, Chapter 11, pp. 206222.
(4) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Democracy, sections 1 and 2
Discussion:
Experts know the best. Therefore, experts should have more political power. Should the Hong
Kong government retain the functional constituency in the legislature? What would Plato
say? What would David Estlund say? Which theory do you think is more plausible? Why?

Week 8 (October 20)

LT8: Democracy
Readings:
(1) Robert B. Talisse, Democracy, The Routledge Companion to Social and Political
Philosophy, Gerald Gaus and Fred DAgostino (eds.) Routledge, 2013, chapter 53, pp.
608-617.
(2) Corey Brettschneider, Democratic RightsThe Substance of Self-Government,
Princeton University Press, 2007, Chapter 1.
5

Discussion:
North Korean can vote. Hong Kongers cannot. Is North Korea more democratic than Hong
Kong? Why or why not? Is there value in democratic institutions? What are those values?

Week 9 (October 27)

LT9: Film Screening: Hanna Arendt
Discussion:
What is Adolf Eichmanns vice, according to Hanna Arendt? Is Eichmann evil? Why or why
not? What is Arendts view on Eichmanns How does Hanna Arendt analyze the trial? Does
she believe that it is just? Do you agree with her analysis?
Week 10 (November 3)
Presentations: Groups 1-5
Group 1 (9:00-9:30)
Group 2 (9:35-10: 05)
Group 3 (10:10-10:40)
Group 4 (10:45-11:15)
Group 5 (11:20-11:50)
Week 11 (November 10)
Presentations: Groups 6-10
Group 6 (9:00-9:30)
Group 7 (9:35-10: 05)
Group 8 (10:10-10:40)
Group 9 (10:45-11:15)
Group 10 (11:20-11:50)
Week 12 (November 17)
Presentations: Groups 11-15
Group 11 (9:00-9:30)
Group 12 (9:35-10: 05)
Group 13 (10:10-10:40)
Group 14 (10:45-11:15)
Group 15 (11:20-11:50)
Week 13 (November 24)
Presentation: Group 16 (9:00-9:30)
Final Exam Two HoursMark Your Calendar!!
Exam Questions will be distributed at 10:00 AM. Students have two hours to write down the
answers. Students must finish the exam by noon.
C. ASSESSMENT
* Attendance and Participation includes both attendance and verbal participation. Active
participation is essential in making the tutorial session viable and interesting. Mere
attendance does not mean a satisfactory tutorial participation.

During the lecture, the lecturer will from time to time give questions and the students shall
submit a brief response in writing. Students will earn 1-2 points from submitting a relevant
written response.
*Group Presentation requires the students to coordinate with each other and work out the
details of group presentation. Members of the same group must work together to figure out a
suitable topic. In addition to your performance during oral presentation, you will also be
evaluated according to your performance during the Q&A session.
Students may choose the date and time of her presentation. She does not have the freedom to
choose her group-mates or the presentation topic.
Members of a group will work together to come up with a presentation topic. The topic must
involve an ethical issue or problem in government.
The presentation should be limited to 30 minutes, including the Q&A session. During a
typical presentation, presenters spend 20-25 minutes on oral presentation and 5-10 minutes
on Q&A. You will be asked to stop presenting after that. After the oral presentation the
presenters should try to answer questions and respond to comments during the Q&A session.
You are required to apply the theories you learned in class to discuss the ethical issue of your
choice.
On October 27, we will work together to sort out the list of presentation topics. All groups
are required to prepare at least 2 presentation topics. If two groups have the same topic, one
of them will have to find a different topic.
* Term Paper should not be a mere repetition of the group presentation. A paper that repeats
the content of the presentation will receive an F. The writer must provide his or her critical
argument on the subject. Remember: An argument is different from a mere assertion. A good
argument is accompanied by relevant/useful/substantial textual and/or empirical evidence. It
is very important to engage critically with the theories/arguments that have been covered in
the class. Students must submit a hardcopy in class and upload an electronic copy to
CANVAS/Turnitin. Those who fail to do so will receive 0 points on the essay.
Each student should submit an individual essay ONE week after the presentation. The essay
should be limited to 1,500 words in length. (Five pages, 12 font, double-spaced) The grader
will stop reading at page 5.
* Final Quiz tests the students ability to consider ethical arguments. Details will be
explained later.

Code of Student Conduct:

http://www.cityu.edu.hk/vpsa/cscdp/cscdp.pdf
The lecturer reserves the right to revise the syllabus as events warrant.
Last update: August 25, 2015