Freedom, for Locke, consists in a person’s power or ability to act or not act on his or her will. He states in his essay, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, that “a man in respect of willing, or the act of volition, when any action in his power is once proposed to his thoughts...cannot be free” (§23). That is, a man is not at liberty to decide whether or not to will. For instance, if he is presented with a thought, which leads to the willing of an action or nonaction (that is in his power) in accordance with that thought, he cannot will the existence or nonexistence of that action, he may only prefer one or the other--and he must necessarily do so--“it is absolutely necessary that he will one or the other” (§23). In sections 31 and 32, Locke equates the qualities of pleasure and pain to easiness and uneasiness.
One of the major questions within the subject of philosophy centers around the concept of a self, and whether we, as humans, function primarily as individual selves or as one greater, universal or transcendent self. If a true individual self does exist, another secondary question arises regarding freedom and, more specifically, to what extent an individual is free to make choices that determine the remainder of their life. At one extreme of the issue, a person could argue that an individual does not have any freedom whatsoever, and that all the events that occur throughout life are predetermined by some sort of higher being or plan and would, therefore, occur regardless of any choices one could possibly make. At the opposite end of the spectrum
It is evident in this particular writing, and many others, that Jefferson is a metaphysical idealist. He invokes Nature’s God as being the giver of law and the rights of man. In being so given by God, a right is personally held as property which cannot be abridged and is such an important gift that it ‘impels them to separate’ from those who might fetter these things. The gift is held by all mankind equally and separately, not as a whole; keeping with Jefferson’s views on property rights. Truth is ‘self-evident’, all mankind is ‘created equal’, and are granted ‘unalienable rights’.
First, we will consider Locke’s view regarding the social contract to notice the differences between his view and that of Hume. According to Locke, the state of nature is one where men are free and independent to do as they desire as long as it is within the bounds of the law of nature and morality, but that a contract is agreed upon because of the inconveniences in that state, and to deviate away from the states of war that occur between individuals. Locke claims that the state of nature is historical since men can for agreements and still be in that state. But then provides one exception that drives men out of that state, which is when they mutually agree to form a community. Hume does not support these claims, and argues
The central theme of existentialism is freedom of the individual. It emphasizes that Man is ultimately responsible for his own actions. Sartre’s notions of absurdity and alienation are connected to existential philosophy. In his essay, ‘The Humanism of Existentialism’ Sartre observes that man is solely responsible for his actions as there is no God he is not predestined by any concepts. Sartre’s philosophy of existentialism is that man is not predestined for his actions he is absolutely free to make his own destiny and is thereby solely responsible for his decisions.
INTRODUCTION Georg Friedrich Wilemls Hegel’s theory of personality can be used to justify protection of a work under copyright law against John Locke’s theory of labour. Hegel’s theory is centered on the concept of free will and personality of an individual and, according to him intellectual property is the way by which individuals distinguish themselves from one another. Property allows individuals to exercise their subjective freedom. Every intellectual property contains the aspect of personality of the owner that is distinct from any other and the same entitles them to enjoy right over that property. He is of the view that a creative work is “the embodiment of the creator’s personality”.
For example the freedom of speech and personal property. Rawls’ argues that Liberty is more important than the distribution of social and economic inequalities. Principles of justice designate the benefits so that way the people can claim the benefits. We could object that justice is served when people receive what they have a right to. We could argue, for instance, that people have a right to what they need or deserve.
In fact, in his work Love and Responsibility, he devoted a portion of his discussion on his “critique of utilitarianism.” The word itself is derived from the Latin verb uti (‘to use’, ‘to take advantage of’), and the adjective utilis (‘useful’). True to its etymology, ‘utilitarianism’ puts the emphasis on the usefulness (or otherwise) of any and every human activity. The usefulness is whatever gives pleasure and excludes its opposite, for pleasure is the essential ingredient of human happiness. The context of his analysis on utilitarianism lies on the person to person relationship. Since for him the proper attitude that is only applicable to the person is to love and no more less.
For the subsequent chapter, I would then tackle the existentialist concepts of Heidegger, dealing with, as we said previously on Freedom, Anxiety and Authenticity. This is of course is to be taken and discussed keeping in mind man. An overview of Heidegger’s notion of freedom is that, he thinks that man is free, in relation to the care structure. The care structure deals with three concepts which is facticity, falleness and existentiality. Facticity deals with what he called ‘throwness’.