Karl Marx and John Locke Karl Marx and John Locke are among the world’s greatest philosophers, yet their ideas about the world and how it should work are just about completely opposite from each other. Marx is anti-religion, anti-free market, and pro-beard, while Locke is pro-religion (with exceptions), pro-free market, and anti-beard. First, examining the philosophers’ views of free-markets, Locke’s ideas (in concert with Adam Smith’s and others’) have dramatically raised the standard of living over time and efficiently allocated resources to enable society to function properly. Locke starts with the idea that man is naturally free and governed by divine and natural law. Regimes are instituted by the consent of the governed, and the emphasis is on liberty, not the power of the sovereign.
His view on what drove human beings and what goodness and badness was all about (he believes we are drive by pleasure opposed to pain – therefore he was a Hedonist), 2. The principle of utility, which is his moral rule and finally 3. The Hedonic calculus (a system that helps measure how good or bad a consequence is). It is relative because it does not say that an action itself is good or bad it is purely based on the situation. Bentham was concerned with human rights and democracy, he believed that happiness shouldn’t only be for one person it should be for lots if of people.
Comte believed this would result in a ‘positive science of society’. He believed this would reveal the invariable laws which governed the evolution of human society. Comte argued that only directly observable ‘facts’ were acceptable as evidence in his science of society. Things that couldn’t be directly measured, such as subjective meanings and purposes were ruled out. Comte believed that the facts of society must be objectively measured and quantified.
In the perfect society, Plato believes that it is necessary for rulers to occasionally refrain from telling the whole truth. He explains why it is in the best interest of the governing class to lie to its working classes in order to maintain the structure of power. First, he discusses his reasoning behind The Guardian class. His system of rulers is based on individual ability, unlike most ruling systems where the people in charge become so based off of family history and financial status (in The Republic, Guardians are not specifically wealthy or poor, as he believes either circumstance would render them unable to accomplish their work). Plato's society is one built around excellence and formed under an aristocratic class that thrives off of the necessity to be as first-rate as possible.
Hume vs. The Social Contract Theory Hume’s main claims in “Of the Original Contract”: i) The idea that one’s duty of allegiance to one’s government stems from one’s having consented to it is false, because its consequences are absurd. If it were correct, then few would have any such duty, because few ever give genuine and voluntary consent to their governments. ii) The duty of allegiance to one’s government derives from utility, not agreement, consent, or promise. The reason why one has a duty to obey the government (when one does) is that such obedience maximizes society’s total utility.
This definition is made clear throughout the whole of the article, and is a crucial distinction to make to grasp his argument. Simply put, the combination of little means and little wants leads to lasting comfort and happiness for the hunter-gatherer. Sahlins discusses what he calls a common misconception that many people today still hold to be true. The view is that the capitalist economy is, without question, far superior to the economy of the hunter-gatherers. He refutes this idea by saying that capitalists are too heavily focused on the possibility of scarcity.
The term classical is used in order to distinguish the original liberalism from the newly emerged forms of liberalism. The whole ideology and the theoretical system are based on individual interests and interactions. Classical liberalism argues that since we humans are intelligent, have a never a ending hunger for pleasures and are moral in the way that we understand the concept behind the saying “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you”, we can live together much more efficiently under the rule of law than we can without it. There are two distinct aspects of classical liberalism that
According to Bentham and Mill, Utilitarianism is hedonistic only when the result of an action has no decidedly negative impact on others. [1] It is now generally taken to be a form of consequentialism, although when Anscombe first introduced that term it was to distinguish between "old-fashioned Utilitarianism" and consequentialism. [2] In utilitarianism, the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, although there is debate over how much consideration should be given to actual consequences, foreseen consequences and intended consequences. In A Fragment on Government, Bentham says, "it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong"[3] and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, he talks of "the principle of utility" but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle.
For Adorno, media's influence, its lack of objectivity and monopoly should not be taken lightly. The culture industry gives the illusion of being informed and involved, while in reality the consumer of mass media is being reduced to minding himself with his own petty matters. According to Adorno the public refrains from criticizing the media because they are dependent upon it. They need the culture industry in order to achieve pleasure and satisfaction and cannot imagine their lives without it. The culture industry preserves its power by presenting "the good life" as reality and through false conflicts that trade him for his real ones.
Utilitarianism about Institutions: Our institutions should be designed so that they benefit society, by producing at least as much welfare as any other design would have produced. • • Which version of utilitarianism is Rawls defending? Might the view he defends here best be understood as a kind of selective rule utilitarianism/consequentialism? Can rule--utilitarianism be motivated? (If what we care about is maximizing happiness/good consequences, doesn’t sticking to the best rules even when doing so in the particular case will sacrifice happiness look like rule--worship?)