Alexander Hamilton once stated, "Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice, without constraint." By saying this, Hamilton meant a government is required because people cannot make decisions based upon their instincts. The voice and thoughts of one are too irresponsible or unreasonable to make decisions. Mankind needs laws and obligations to live by, not only to keep peace but to protect ourselves from our basic nature.
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
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.
It does not settle the west. It does not educate.” Thoreau also uses powerful imagery in order to persuade his readers towards his ideals. He believed that one must be conscious of the laws they choose to obey and disobey, whether or not they are in the minority. The people should not be tricked into believing that neither the government nor the majority will know what is right and what is wrong. Instead, Thoreau remarks that it is up to every man to decide for himself what is right based on his moral standards and ethics.
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.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
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
It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance. Laws do not solve the problem, rather they make individuals dependant on outside authorities, to regulate out lives and provide answers for problems that may arise. Therefore, we lose our reason and ability to think for ourselves, we lose out natural autonomy. Thus a state has the opportunity to put a moral code upon us which we cannot question as we become dependant on the rules of the state. Godwin argued that human beings are naturally rational and have the
Cultural Relativism is a theory stating the idea that cultural norms and ideas differ from culture to culture. In addition, Cultural Relativism says that there are no universal standards and truth in ethics. It is relative to the culture to determine whether a moral standard is right or wrong. There is no objective standards judging other cultures code as inferior or superior to another. Thus, since cultural relativism states that we can’t judge other cultures moral codes, then we must be tolerant of them.
Words like “distinct” help us understand what Mill is trying to get at. He is opposed to customs because he believes that if a person practices customs, they will not develop their own unique personality. He also uses words like “educate or develop” to show that he values the individuals education, development, and their distinct qualities. I agree with Mill’s position on the need for individual development and education, because it is important for us to make our own decisions to develop according to our own needs and not be dependent or reliant on other people. Mill wants us to make our own choices.