RESPOND to each post150 words EACHPOST ONEAs a result of havin.docxisbelsejx0m
RESPOND to each post150 words EACH
POST ONE
As a result of having a different perspective than Thomas Hobbes and the state of nature, John Locke also views the need for enacting a social contract differently. Locke did not see humans as warring in a state of nature as Hobbes had. Instead, Locke's state of nature could be explained as a perfect place where people had the freedom to choose their own paths in life so long as it did not infringe upon others.
Locke viewed people as being kind toward one another as a result of the Law of Nature, which was a result of virtues from God. Under the Law of Nature, people were equal and would be treated as such because of their morals stemming from their belief in God. By the same token, Locke acknowledged that having liberty in the state of nature was not synonymous with a "license" to do what we pleased, as, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions…"(Locke, section 6). Only when a man has done something wrong can another man have power over him in the state of nature and this power cannot be used excessively, and only using calm reason and conscience (Locke, section 8)
Locke also understood the need for private property for men. Private property was the combining of a person using his (her) own labor along with the natural resources in nature to produce something. When a person used their abilities to produce something, they should have the right to that final product. However, a person could not claim more than what should be considered their own "fair share." In other words, owning excessive private property would now breach the Law of Nature. Because of the desire for private property and the want to maintain it, men would give up the freedom of the state of nature, relying upon a government for protection.
To me, Locke's state of nature is more in line with my own thinking. People are not naturally evil and warring, but instead more virtuous, whether stemming from beliefs in God, their own upbringing, or just naturally moral. As a result, the only need for people to enter into a social contract is to settle disputes and not for self preservation as Hobbes suggested.
Although I accept (interpret?) the notions of a state of nature from both Locke and Hobbes as theoretical, Locke's description seems closer to what I understand as reality. His description of the importance of property is not only unique from Hobbes', but also makes sense. People "like their things" and do not want them taken away. This seems very natural in society today. Locke's views were instrumental not only in our "re-establishment" of the state of nature when the American colonists declared their independence, but was also instrumental in the writing of the Bill of Rights.
POST TWO
Locke view of the state of nature is that mankind is "a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others (iep.utm.edu)." In other words people ar.
Week 1, Lecture B Do We Need A GovernmentOften we use words .docxcelenarouzie
Week 1, Lecture B: "Do We Need A Government?"
Often we use words like freedom and liberty without ever thinking about what these words mean. We assume that we all mean the same thing by these words; however, in reality, we all live by different personal definitions of freedom and liberty. Our definitions are not based on a dictionary but are informed by our unique personal life experiences. Consider the diversity even in this course. How might someone understand words like liberty and freedom from a background, culture, age, gender, or even race that is different from yours? Each of us has a unique story that has brought us to this point – and each of our stories is intrinsically valuable and important.
If we think about this level of diversity – how and why do such different individuals come together to exist together in a society?
The State of Nature, or Life Without Government
Simply, freedom and liberty are not the same thing. Let’s consider what we mean by freedom. For our purposes, freedom is doing whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it.
If everyone had absolute freedom and could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted what would our world look like? What would our relationships with each other look like?
These are the questions that political philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke asked. These are also question that our founders asked as they pondered the creation of a new nation. They called this condition of absolute freedom the State of Nature – a state in which people lived in absolute freedom with no social structures or government.
For Hobbes, life in this state of nature looked very terrible. Hobbes described the state of nature as:
“In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short…”
Additionally, Hobbes suggested:
“For before constitution of sovereign power, as hath already been shown, all men had right to all things, which necessarily causeth war.”
For Hobbes, freedom was each individual having the right to all things. If you have new car, in the state of nature, I have right to take your new car – even by force and violence.
Hobbes is saying that in the state of nature, or trying to live life without government, no form of cooperation between individuals is possible and thus there will be no grocery stores, no computers, no smartphones, no art, and each individual will suffer a very quick and violent death.
The founders of our nation shared Hobbes’ fairly pessimistic outlook regarding human nature. James Madison famously wrote i.
1. Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679)<br />Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher from 1588 to 1679. Hobbes believed that humans were selfishly physical objects, and all their actions, sensations, thoughts and perceptions were based on a series of mechanical processes within the body. Human action is then explained by each person acting in ways that they can relieve the discomfort or pain within their own body to preserve their well-being. <br />He believes that humanity as a whole would be best kept in check if they handed over individual sovereignty in order for order and protection, due to him seeing the horrors of the civil war and the natural brutish life humans had in the past. However he also believed the ruler should only have power when it could give every human being security. His political ideas involving a ruler for the subjects influenced the government we have today and this was one of the first ideas placing importance on the individual subjects.<br />John Locke (1632-1704)<br />Unlike Hobbes, John Locke believed that each individual human was capable using their thought and reason to make decisions, and disagreed with the authority the Church had over the people. However he did believe in a social contract in which individuals received security, order and protection of their property similar to Hobbes, because human nature is selfish. The main difference is Locke wanted the government to be directly accountable to the people. John Locke believed that essentially, humans were good and wanted to work together, and that in the future they would create a single nation because humans depend on one another, and each would have their own property opinions.<br />Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)<br />Directly opposing John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau believes that in its essence, human beings are uncivilized and without morals. The only way good men come about it through society. In nature, the only way to survive was to associate with others and so humans desire that society. <br />Rousseau was one of the first to challenge the idea of private property, and so he had a hand in socialist tendencies. He also argued that the will of the majority is not always right, and that the goal of government should be to secure freedom, equality, and justice for all, regardless of the will of the majority. He wanted states to act in a moral fashion and children to learn by experience as opposed to from books. Rousseau had the initial components of a plan for a moral, communist government, but one that gave everyone freedom.<br />