Personality and moral self explain how and why human beings make free choices. The libertarianism theory has been explained by CA Campbell, who said that human beings see themselves as free agents and therefore accept moral responsibility for their actions. Humans must accept responsibility for these actions and face any consequences that may come their way. John Stuart Mill - an influencal figure in Liberatarianism – believe we are free and morally responsible for all our actions. Mill believed it was extremely important that an indivduals free will should not be crushed by society.
The regime in control must shield the right to life, liberty and property. When Hospers states, “libertarians support all such legislation as will protect human beings against the use of force by others, for example, laws against killing, attempted killing, maiming, beating, and All kinds of physical violence”, he shows this to be true (Velasquez 677). Basically, the government should be the force acting against negative crime committed from one person to another. If the peace is kept mutual between the citizens in the society, the government should not be active at all. The property of a citizen should be kept in safety, Hospers says, “libertarians support legislation that protects the property rights of individuals against confiscation, nationalization, eminent domain, robbery, trespass, fraud and misinterpretation, patent and copyright, libel and slander” (Velasquez 677).
Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder. Example: Woodrow Wilson’s support for first world government ‘the League of Nations in 1919. Liberals recognise that law must be enforced, endorsing the principle of collective security between a number of states. Second stems from Liberal commitment to individual and individualism (equal moral worth). Although they endorse idea of self-determination, does not mean they entitle nations to treat people however they choose.
Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature. Hamilton views the role of government as changeable and believed it would work better as a strong centralized government. As long man has faith in changing a government, man will abide by it. He states," not conform to the dictates of reason
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
Legalists believed that if the punishment was heavy and the law against their actions were strict, neither the powerful nor the weak would be able to escape the consequences. There are a lot of different aspects of Confucianism and Legalism that have opposing views; the role of government was one of them. In Confucianism, the government was designed to have a good ruler that the people respected and obeyed. The intent was to have the government benefit the people. Legalists on the other hand, believed that the people were there to serve the government and that the government was the main priority in the society.
Since long before the birth of Christ people have subjected themselves to the rule of others, transferring their rights and freedom to appointed individuals in exchange for safe, regulated social orders. The idea of the social contract flourished through the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 17th and 18th centuries and is still a relevant concept in explaining the legitimacy of state power in the modern world today. The social contract is not binding, and can be broken at any time. However I will argue in this paper that, although we are not obliged to obey the social contract, we will continue to do so because it is in our best interests. In this paper I will critically evaluate the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau and attempt to explain why we will always obey the social contract and why it is important that we continue to do so.
The clean autonomous morality derived from Rousseau's and Kant's conception of human freedom as self-determination is, Habermas states, inevitably alien to the reality of everyday life. However, through its mediated form universalistic moral principles can effect practical validity, evidenced by the inclusion of fundamental rights in contemporary constitutions.1 Within a single country the expectation that universal principles will be applied is related to the fact that there is an authority, namely the state, which guarantees that all others will be held to the same principles. The problem [of modernity?] is: how can international relations be bound by recognized principles of a universalistic morality , where there is – and perhaps should not even be – such an authority? For a world state would be something to be feared.2 On Modernity – “at the end of the 18th century, there was the experience of living in a society and a time in which all pregiven models and norms were disintegrating, and in which one therefore had to discover one's own.
John Locke, who is often credited as the father of human rights and liberalism, maintained that humans were free and equal, and that the ideal society was based on a social contract between the humans and those who governed. He basically employed the concept of natural rights and the social contract to argue that the rule of law should replace absolutism in government, that rulers were subject to the consent of the governed and that individuals had an essential right to life, liberty and property. As we mentioned in class, Thomas Hobbes was the one who started the theory of social contract and developed it elaborately arguing for unlimited authority in a ruler. The intellectual journey of liberalism kept going beyond John Locke with the Enlightenment, a period in the 18th century that shows intellectual penetration that questioned old traditions and influenced monarchies. Some other documents asserting individual rights include 1689 the English Bill of Rights, 1789 the French Declaration on the Rights of Man and Citizen and 1791 the US Constitution and Bill of Rights that all are written precursors to today’s human rights documents.
This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract