People were opposed to one person ruling their lives, enforcing and promoting laws beneficial to him and a selected few. Top in the new government’s constitution was the declaration of citizen’s rights. The constitution was a vital Revolution document which stated that the collective and individual rights of each social estate were universal. Laws were only meant to forbid actions that could hurt the society meaning that laws were to be created only for the people’s good and not for selfish reasons (Neely 2008, p. 79). However, the Terror enforced and promoted laws against equality and liberty ideals.
The state is corrupt and corrupting. Bakunin believed ‘there is nothing more dangerous for a man’s morality than the habit of commanding’. The state is also destructive. It encourages individuals to fight on their behalf, at the expense of others. As Randolph Bourne put it, ‘war is the health of the state’.
Some people believe that culture is a way that morality can be established, but morality differs from culture to culture. In Doing Ethics, Lewis Vaughn talks about cultural relativism and lays out an argument for it. In the second premise it states “If people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles” (Vaughn 26). He makes it clear that he does not support this premise and explains his points as to why this is false. Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in.
Patricks method not only runs the risk of stirring up a violent situation, but by intervening on somebodys everyday routine you are negatively being viewed by society therefore no one wants to support your cause. The last thing you want when protesting a war is to cause a potentially violent situation because then you are moving in the opposite
With that being said, the gods strongly pervade their form of justice throughout the human society. In comparison with today’s justice, the actions portrayed from the gods would be too cruel and in fact illegal. We have to ask ourselves, is it the fact that because the human society of The Odyssey cannot stand up against the power of the gods that justice permeates? In reading The Odyssey, I have found a degree of caution due to strong fear the humans feel towards the gods. Acceptance of the gods actions are mainly because of great fear the human civilization feels towards the imperious justice system laid upon them, also justice rules over humans by the realization of authority by power.
The Cynics believed that the very essence of civilization is corrupt, and so lived austere, unconventional lives. They distrusted luxury as a “hook” that always brought complications and frustration in to people’s lives. Happiness could only come from self-discipline
Small though it be, it will make many mistakes, because it will be composed of men. Discord will reign there” (Democracy, Voltaire). His opinions on the pursuit of progress with abandon were that progress should be sought after but not without humanity and rationale in mind. He would not have wanted progress to be had on the sacrifice of human rights or the loss of rationality. He was somebody who “believed in progress and in the virtues of civilization, contrary to Rousseau’s belief that civilization corrupts man” (Voltaire, New World Encyclopedia).
In conclusion, as it can be observed through this essay, Jack and Roger develop immoral traits in order to gain power, which in return leads to the destruction of their own civilization. One should never strive for full authority as it can absolutely corrupt
The Prime Instigator of Conflict is Fear Fear and violence is rampant within the Salem society in “The Crucible”. This insular society is obsessed with sin and damnation, where neighbors are found pitted against each other and judgment is the norm. This is an extremely conflicted environment that engenders fear. The structure of this community fights itself because it is in massive conflict, so hysteria and anarchy is the rule of the day. The rigid and apprehensive nature of the society encourages conflict as it denies the individuals the opportunity for legitimately voicing and enunciating ones true self.
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