Hard determinism is the theory that human behaviour and actions are wholly determined by external factors, and therefore humans do not have genuine free will or ethical accountability. There are several different supporting views for this belief. Hard determinism is underpinned by the work of Isaac Newton’s theory of scientific laws which is that we are completely governed by these laws. According to these laws one does not have moral responsibility for their actions as they were predetermined by a ‘higher power’. Hence why, natural laws such as gravity and motion assist in forming the basis for the cause and effect that fills the discussion of hard determinism.
Machiavelli’s philosophy about the nature of man is that man as a whole is mostly bad and while retaining a few good qualities will lean towards his own self-interests when all things are equal; “that man has qualities that will bring him either praise or blame”. He also portrays men as selfish and fickle creatures as he writes, “..this is to be asserted in general of men, that they are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous..”. Hobbes on the other hand, views men in a “state of nature” as being completely self-centered and willing to do anything to get what they want; mankind lives in a dog-eat-dog world where everyone looks after only themselves and has no regard for others. Hobbes describes this self-centered way of life as being "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He also shows men as incapable of conserving or prolonging their life without living under a ruling body, “augmentation of dominion over men being necessary to a man's conservation, it ought to be allowed him.” It is evident that both Machiavelli and Hobbes’ views of man greatly influence the way they think that man should be controlled.
However determinism take an opposite view to this; hard determinism is the theory that everything in the universe, including all human actions and choices has a cause which proceeds it. So whatever we do, we could never have done otherwise, whether we feel we have a choice or not. Soft determinism, on the other hand is a view that although the main events and decisions in our lives are determined, we can choose our own path as autonomous individuals to get there. Hard determinists would agree that ethical statements are merely the result of social conditioning as they believe that everything is determined by a cause. In this case, the cause would be social conditioning – Baroch Spinoza said that although we may think that we are free, we are not, we are merely aware of our actions.
Considering their lasting influence and pertinence to contemporary society, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx have both immensely contributed to the study of social and political theory. This paper aims to provide core analyses of two of their notable, corresponding works: Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and Marx’s The Communist Manifesto. Notwithstanding. Having been written nearly a century apart, an interwoven study of the two works reveals a deeper insight into and comparison of the ideas set forth by both. Fundamentally, Rousseau and Marx refuted the theories of their predecessors; namely Hobbe’s insistence that man’s original state of nature was terrifying and disadvantageous to individuals and Locke’s championing of the protection of an individual’s right to private property.
Firstly is social interest, such as health and safety and public order, whilst individual interests include privacy and domestic relations. Pound believed where possible the law should create a level playing field of these interests meaning social interests should be weighed against social interests and individual interests against individual interests as a failure to do this will result in a bias in favour of social interest. Karl Marx believed the law was part of the ‘repressive state apparatus’ used to ensure the continuing exploitation of the working class members of society by the upper and ruling classes. For Marx, the law treated as lesser the interests of the lower classes to those of the upper classes and so did not and would not truly
He feels that our instinctive character is to be selfish, only caring of those pertaining to us. The savage man was not an animal, but rather had beast-like qualities, creating a world of violence and constant war. Locke had a very different ideology on the nature of man. In my opinion, Locke views man through rose-colored glasses, Locke suggests humans naturally follow the moral law, (which can be discovered by reason) he also states that forms of government and society are natural to us, and that war and conflict that ravage our world, occur simply for the reason that we were fighting for what we believe in, and each side believes they`re just. Rousseau suggests that humans were simple; without speech, culture and mature thought prior to our social and cultural development.
For all its emphasis on power, much of the play is actually concerned with powerlessness. In what ways is powerlessness important in Richard III? In King Richard III, Shakespeare depicts Yorkist society as an utterly selfish, power-hungry world in which social standing is of the utmost importance. Antagonist and evil “villain” Richard exemplifies this egotism and avarice through his constant, ruthless manipulation and deceit of others. However, Shakespeare makes it clear that in fact others’ narrow-mindedness is key to Richard’s success.
As for The Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx in collaboration with Friedrich Engels, in 1848; Marx’s main topic is that he attempts to illustrate the goals of communism and the theory of class relations that underline this movement, that are driven by economic systems. (Marx, Engels, and Taylor 95), B.2). The Communist Manifesto and On The Social Contract are books that both address issues regarding social and economic problems that are stressed by historical events. Socially these books stress that there is are ongoing class conflicts, in which there is a
Social action theorists believe that illusion of a stable and constant society is slightly more than hundreds of individual interactions each carried out by choice and interpretation. Max Weber a famous social action theorist put forward his view that humans are fundamentally different from the subject of matter of the natural sciences, due to the fact that they have free-will; in that they make decisions, attach meanings, hold intents and harbour motives. Therefore, the ultimate aim of sociology should be inevitably to individual decision and thoughts, rather than social structure. Weber takes on a completely different viewpoint from Durkheim, who put forward his theory that individual behaviour is constrained by determined by natural laws. Nevertheless, one major criticism of these structuralist approaches, i.e.
Kant states, “is that is that people are rational and moral agents who can each determine right and wrong for ourselves… if the state does that for us, it denies us the respect due our autonomy and it also destroys our capacity to act moral…” This could be looked that since the state decides what is moral and what isn’t we act immoral to prove that we can beat the system. So no matter what the law is each person has certain fundamental interests that must be under the individual's exclusive control and immune from state