This does not mean, however, that it is a state of license: one is not free to do anything at all one pleases, or even anything that one judges to be in one’s interest. The State of Nature, although a state wherein there is no civil authority or government to punish people for transgressions against laws, is not a state without morality. To Locke, persons are assumed to be equal to one another in such a state, and therefore equally capable of discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature, which is on Locke’s view the basis of all morality, and given to us by God, commands that we not harm others with regards to their life, health, liberty, or possessions. This is because we all belong equally to God, and because we cannot take away that which is rightfully His, we are prohibited from harming one another.
Essay 1 Aristotle and John Locke both believe humans were not created to live alone but instead among other people of the same community. Humans are not independent beings, and those who live in isolation lack the purpose of life: becoming a citizen and exercising one 's full potential of human flourishing. According to Aristotle, the collective community or multitude of citizens coexisting with one another is happiness, whereas Locke believes that the collective community is protecting autonomy and property. Both philosophers believe that to become a citizen, one must contribute to politics with the intent of creating a better society for all. Aristotle and Locke however, have differing views on how a person accomplishes this.
In chapter 7 Rousseau suggests that the individual freedom is retained because the sovereign cannot impose its own will on someone. By doing so then the sovereign hurts all members. This duality is the force that prevents a tyranny from emerging and allows equality of it members along with individual
Civil disobedience rejects the idea that if one wishes to live in a certain society, one must obey that society’s laws and policies. The social contract theory is the agreement among society to put in place moral and political governing rules of behaviour in order to form the society in which they live in. According to John Locke, the State of Nature is where people live together in the state of complete liberty to conduct the best fitting life for oneself. Furthermore, the State of Nature has no governing body which results in an anarchy, where a society is unable to exist. The State of Nature assumes everyone to be equal as well as that each person possesses their own natural rights.
Being an existentialist, he also believed in unconditional freedom which did not allow for subterranean forces determining one’s choices, as they leave one without any responsibility. In the chapter, “Bad Faith”, Sartre rejects Freud’s psychoanalytic picture of the functioning of the unconscious and offers a critique of the claims and mechanisms of psychoanalytic theory as well as an account of the mechanisms of bad faith. As Sartre noted: “By rejecting a conscious unity of the psyche, Freud is obliged to imply everywhere a magic unity linking distant phenomena across obstacles, just as sympathetic magic unites the spellbound person and the wax image fashioned in his likeness.” (pp. 53, 54) This paper will argue that Sartre’s account of the paradoxes of self-deception and his criticisms of the notion of the unconscious was really a criticism of Freud’s doctrine of repression, Freud’s theory on how thoughts become unconscious. Sartre’s criticisms were an over-simplification of Freud’s theorization of the conscious and the unconscious.
It is based on the principle of equality of all citizens and on the power to the people, but these principles are not completely fair with respect to the citizens, and more importantly, they do not work in developed societies. Equality of all is magnificent in principle; nonetheless, it would not be fair, since it does not take into account the principle of meritocracy. Under Marx’s communism, people will not be rewarded for their merits, but everyone will have the same opportunities and enjoy the same benefits. The equality of opportunities that Marx suggests is moral since everyone should have the same opportunities to receive a good quality education, to be able to apply for a good job and receive adequate health care. However, in certain fields as labor, people should be able to succeed thanks to merit, not thanks to equality or recommendations.
He believes that conventional justice which is the one people produce may be tampered while the natural justice is pure and free of corruption. It is believed that injustice is better than justice because in society, jp injustice payed while justice is harsh and difficult to bear. Despite everything said, to really determine and reveal what I just and justice is, a study of how a city is created should come to place. Plato believes that within a city, one can't go beyond what they are intended to do, justice is the ability to do your own
Just like how Master Oogway says “There are no accidents,” to David Hume, there are no accidents when it comes to the creation of society. To Hume, society has been created on the basis of stabilizing possessions. What’s mine is not what’s yours, and Hume makes this clear when establishing this rule. Humans have come to a compromise of isolation, which is born from the threat of scarcity in which people agree to leave each other alone to attain peace within society. In Hume’s eyes, human nature is solely composed of two things, passions and understanding, and without understanding, humans would revert to nature.
Firstly Helevictus believe that there is one system, morality and freedom. He argues that there is one system and one rule. He said the man “seek pleasure and avoid pain”, that is how we are. We are selfish being. Man is not good but we can merely be changed by society that we live in.
Despotism is “the last stage of inequality,” since “private individuals again become equal because they are nothing.” This condition accords with Hobbes’s vision of the absolute sovereign, whose authority dwarfs that of the citizen. However, Rousseau clarifies that such a government would be illegitimate, whereas Hobbes believes the monopoly of power to be a necessary condition for all governments. --- Thus, it is difficult to conform the views of Rousseau and Hobbes to a binary agreement or disagreement with the statement that a legitimate state provides equality. Hobbes would largely agree with the statement, but with a pessimistic view of equality under despotism. Rousseau would tend to disagree, believing that society causes inequality, but can also ameliorate it.