Hobbes sees natural law as a state of war in which every man is an enemy to every man. (Hobbs, T. 1991 p.94) Locke on the other hand, sees natural law as a state of equality and freedom. (Locke, J. 1967 p. 289). 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.
He believes that he is cursed when he falls into deep thought, and questions the ways of the collective society (Rand, 21). An example of Equality 7-2521 desiring to know, was when he longed to see a reflection of himself, he thought to himself “Men never see their own faces and never ask their brothers about it, for it is evil to have concern
He believed that the government had an obligation to protect the citizens natural rights. But that was the only reason that the government existed, and if the people believed that the government was not fulfilling this task, they could overthrow him and find someone new. John Locke believed that good and evil, reward and punishment, are the only motives to a rational human being. These are the guidelines by which all
We are to keep the peace among the nations of the earth because that is our belief as a people, but we must know our enemy, we must know their intentions and what they wish to carry out. Terrorists do not adhere to the custom of respect of an individual. They act as animals, slaughtering without remorse. They do not deserve the rights of our nation or of man. The argument for the Justification of torture on terrorists is completely justifiable and the only course of action in ascertaining vital information for the nation’s defense.
Table of Contents RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3 INTRODUCTION 5 Locke’s Political Philosophy 6 Locke On Human Nature 6 Locke’s State Of Nature 7 Locke’s Social Contract 8 Consent 10 Locke On Revolution 11 Critique 13 CONCLUSION 15 BIBLIOGRAPHY 16 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Aims and Objectives: The aim of this paper is to study Locke’s theory of Political Obligation. The purpose underlying this exercise is to understand what Locke meant by political obligation, interpret his views on different elements comprising the doctrine of obligation, and analyze his theory in comparison to what other political philosophers thought about political obligation. Scope and Limitation: Although there is extensive amounts of material on Locke’s theories as he has written on everything from toleration, individualism, property, family, etc., the researcher in this paper has focussed on the major components of political obligation. Thus the scope expands to cover Locke’s political philosophy, his views on human nature, the state of nature, social contract, consent, revolution. The limitations faced by the researcher were lack of contemporary and modern views on Locke’s political obligation.
Given Hobbes’ account of human nature in the state of nature, can one ever leave it? The well-known and oft-quoted assessment, “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short,” is Hobbes’ unduly pessimistic and anarchical view of man in the state of nature. He believed the state of nature to be a state of war, where man would do anything for self-preservation, there was no right and wrong, and where there would be “continual fear, and danger of violent death.” The natural state of man is left when individuals give up their natural and anarchic freedom to do whatever they please, in exchange for personal security and it is this that Hobbes bases his theory on the need for government on. For a government to be established each individual must agree to this new establishment as if to say, “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men.” This type of social contract works as a quid pro quo between the individuals and the sovereign: the power of the sovereign is absolute as long as the lives of the individuals are protected by the sovereign. Hobbes argues that the only way to establish such a power is for men “to conferre all their power and strength upon One Man, or upon one Assembly of men, that may reduce all their Wills by plurality of voices unto one Will.” In short, Hobbes argues that man leaves the state of nature in order to gain personal security which is achieved through the creation of a civil society, with a governing body.
Torture is inhumane and should be illegal The act of torture is cruel, degrading, and inhumane. Torture has tremendous negative physical effects on human body, the act of torture involves unimaginable amounts of physical and mental pain that no one should have to endure. Torture is harmful to the mind. Torture is ineffective, unreliable, and may not yield positive results. Torture is illegal is the majority of the world and immoral to most cultures.
On the individual level, both realism and liberalism make very outdated assumptions about human nature. Human nature has been one of the main issues that philosophers have considered throughout history, and an understanding of human nature is obviously the basis of any political ideology. Realists claim that human beings are innately violent and selfish; 1 Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Shannon L. Blanton, World Politics: Trend
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.
Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change. Second, civil disobedience is a method of political engagement: its goal must be aimed at bringing the law into conformity with the requirements of justice. No civil state is perfect – all contracts have compromises and flaws. As a united people of a state, it must have its general will parallel to the path of justice to ensure freedom and equality. Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice.