Sovereignty and Right in the Eyes of Hobbes and Locke The state of nature is the common thread between Hobbes and Locke. It is a realm of reality that would ensue if society was disbanded and human nature dictated man’s actions. Hobbes and Locke considered the state of nature and how humans acted without outside forces as indicators to show how politics should work. It is the absence of order and rule, that helps both philosophers determine the complete opposite, sovereignty from a political covenant. Although both their ideas of sovereignty stem from an analysis of the state of nature, they do not arrive at the same kind of sovereign, because they have different interpretations and conclusions on human nature.
The non-ideal is where the regime refuses to comply with the law of peoples. Law of people allow for self-defense to safeguard and protect when the human rights are violated. The Law of Peoples stipulates principles that are to govern the relationships between peoples. At the center of the theoretical position, is the public reason which cleanse or purifies taint of controversial issues and provide a way for the attainment of peace. “The public reason specifies basic moral and political values to determine a constitutional democratic government relation to the citizens.” In other words it is meant to say that it concerns how the political relation is to be understood.
Such interests being firmly embedded in our shared legal and cultural heritage. Further asserting that a man with no privacy granted by the state goes against the very concept of individuality, which forms the core of a nation’s constitution. Also, adding that recognising the core of privacy is more important rather than bifurcating privacy into a tetrad, an inevitable result flowing from Prosser’s
Rousseau’s theory unlike Locke’s theory states that men would be independent and not need to rely on each other. He states “man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains". With this statement Rousseau believes this freedom and natural goodness is corrupted by the influence of civilization. Rousseau believed that egoism would be absent but compassion would be consistently present. Similarly to Locke, Rousseau believes that we should use our reason with reference to people and states that pity should be the forefront of
It plainly suggests that egoism means that no person shall bend another to his or her will; that no one has the right to do so. We must discern the delicate contrast between an egoist and an egotist. The egotists would adopt Rand’s philosophy as a tool for their own shortcomings, to forgo the rule of communal synergy. "Politically, true individualism means recognizing that one has a right to his own life and happiness. But it also means uniting with other citizens to preserve and defend the institutions that protect that right" (Shawn E. Klein, Community and American Individualism.
In theory, people are meant to kept in check by a paramount authority for their best interest. In an excerpt from the Leviathan, Hobbes states, “...that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre…” Government is a unifying power, an external force that placates human nature with a sense of security. Similarly, in Common Sense by Paine, “Here then is the origin and rise of government; namely, a mode rendered necessary by the inability of moral virtue to govern the world; here too is the design and end of government. Freedom and security.” Regarding the structure of government, specifically separation of powers, the Second Treatise Concerning Government, the concept of judicial, executive, and legislative branches is further explained, “First, There wants an establish’d, settled, known Law, received and allowed by common Consent to the Standard of Right and Wrong (...) Secondly, there wants a known and indifferent Judge (...) Thirdly, there often wants Power to back and support the
The individual is the best judge of their own interest, other people should not force them to do things they do not want to do. Therefore, the individual responsibility would refer to self-interest; “[a man`s] independence is or right absolute…over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign” (203). In classical liberalism, the individual is more important than the collective society and every individual deserves respect. A classical liberal, in this case John Stewart Mill would say that that government should intervene in order to prevent someone from doing any harm to others (directly or indirectly), but he thinks that government has no business intervening to protect individuals from any harm they may be doing to themselves, it is their individual responsibility whether or not their actions and their decisions harm themselves and they have the right to do those actions until they are in the position where they could potentially harm other; “ the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself”(206). Individual responsibility would also include the individual being held accountable for his actions when they do cause harm to
The Transcendentalists believed that everyone was their own person and that conforming to others ruined what it meant to be human. In “Self-Reliance”, Ralph Waldo Emerson stated that “Whoso be a man, must be a nonconformist”(Emerson 370). This quote means that the Transcendentalists believed so much in individualism, that they went so far as to say that one is not a man if they conform to society. Another example of individualism is in “Self-Reliance” when Emerson said that to be great one must not follow the societal norms, but instead go their own way. Someone may be misunderstood in life but in the future they could be looked upon as a hero(Emerson 372).
He describes that kinds of things are what are judged on a similar basis. Humankind is the only kind judged on morality, therefore, rights must be attributed to all of humankind. It doesn’t make sense to attribute rights to individuals. No rational person would consider it fair to give some individuals of the same kind rights, and then deny those rights to others. Simply put, rights must be given on the basis of what kind something is, not an individual basis.
How can moral judgement be passed if the concept (a subjective construct) responsibility and morality is detached from any objectivity? Furthermore, objectivity cannot be restricted by binaries such as good and evil. With that said, it seems life negating to pass moral judgement on a peer based on a code of morals without an objective foot to stand on. Nietzsche is also concerned with another leg of the traditional concept of responsibility: Causality. Nietzsche maintains that: Firstly, free will and unfree will does not exist and an actor does not act out of free will.