This model legitimizes the power of the sovereign without including the god’s will into the equation but by simply defending such power is the source of establishing peace. The power being discussed is the right to punish without being punished with the same standards and the right to decide when to make war or peace . In Hobbes’ approach, violence as a tool is centralized on one man as a mechanism to bring peace by punishing; however, violence cannot be used against the sovereign himself or to the people who are outside of this contract
The community that the story revolves around believes in following their doctrine to the point of perfection, creating a society in which people can only exist as reflections of their reputations. In this society, faith seemingly leads directly to existence in the eyes of Salemites. If everybody believes that someone has sinned, then that person might as well have; they will be treated with great disdain, regardless. This in mind, worthiness to enter Heaven can not be assessed based on what people do, but rather, on what they are speculated to have done. This leaves reputation being equated to salvation and, as far as Puritans are concerned, survival is not nearly as precious as eternal life.
Rousseau advocates equality in society. He advocated an equal distribution of rights but not an equal distribution of rank. For instance he does not, reject differences in property and rank, as has been seen when he says “Distributive justice would be opposed to the rigorous equality of the state of nature, even if it were practicable in civil society.” Throughout, Rousseau’s political writings he has remarked on a single theory of distributive equality. He implies that Political inequaities are wrong because they do not respond to natural inequalities and states that with the devopment of private proeprt and more complex human society, private property is invented, and the labour necessary for human survival is divided among different indivisuals for the whole. This division of labour and the beginning og private poerperty llow the property owners and all those who live off the labour of others to dominate and exploit the
They believe that no matter what they do, they don’t have the power or ability to change the things or events that are going to happen since it was all fated. However, with agency in human, they believe that something will be bound to changes with their action. They believe they could do something to modify the ending to anything but the known-predicted ending. Sophocles has seamlessly engaged determinism into the book through making known that Apollo’s predictions will happen to Oedipus. To King Laius and Queen Jocasta, Apollo was the mighty one; his prediction is and will be the only truth to them.
I personally don’t think religion should play a part because it would still be considered doing something for a higher being. I’m not saying I don’t believe in god, I’m just saying we shouldn’t do “good” because “someone” is watching us. For example, a non-specific God said we should take care of the world we live in because it is the right thing to do or we would sin for not doing so. Anyone can clearly see anything that isn’t taken care of goes bad. God didn’t need to tell us that.
He states that virtue is an abstract concept and because of that it doesn’t have any real world consequences. Keeping that in mind virtue won’t be an adequate guide to being a politician. Machiavelli even defines it as receiving praise, not have a good moral compass. Doing what is morally right will gain you favor with the people that you’re ruling, but it may only last a short time if there are unforeseen consequences. A leader in charge of a large group of people needs to cast aside their personal moralities and think of the big picture.
Rawl describe the veil of ignorance as a tool that aims to allow people only to know how a general society works, and helps people choose rational principles of justice based on universal morals. Rawls theorized that the veil of ignorance allows people to erase their bias and come to unanimous agreements because no one is in a position to make any principles of justice tailored to the natural lottery of life, in other words the only way one can determine if a choice, or action is moral is if they don’t know how it affect them. Rawls theory of justice introduces two principles which his theory is dependent on. The first principle states: “each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others” (Rawls 60). The main concept Rawls conveys is that behind the veil of ignorance the individual does not know there advantage so, that person will try to strive towards
Each event could have been sufficient reasoning for Candide to quit, to lose all faith in humanity and the world at large, yet he persists. Although in writing this Voltaire’s aim was to show this optimism has no eventual fruition, I believe optimism is the only approach one can take when given life’s burdensome adversities. If we take this lesson at face value and conclude that optimism has no benefits to us, we will struggle mightily when faced with any hardship throughout life. Voltaire is partially correct in that potentially not every dark time during our lives is going to be beneficial, but to truly be a failure is to lose hope. Hope and optimism are the only reasons many people throughout history have become successful despite overwhelming odds against them; it is also the
Robert Nozick was a pupil of Rawls and rejected his teacher’s insistence on the need for governmental intervention in order to achieve a redistribution of wealth. In his book, Anarchy, State and Utopia, he said that a just society is the one based on individualism. The natural rights of the individual are to be considered inviolable, and each person may enjoy those rights subject only to certain moral side restraints concerning the rights of others. He proposes a “minimal State” whose functions are limited to the “night-watchman” protection against force, theft, and fraud, the enforcement of contracts, and a few other essentials but it will not become involved in any form of economic redistribution. It has come into existence by morally permissible
He is totally against that religion should have anything to do with determining the weight of people’s opinions. He gave evidence for this claim by stating that some of the greatest moral leaders didn’t believe in religions but had very valuable work. He also says that an individual should balance between faith, religion, and own personal morality and not only religion. One of the reasons Mill supports this claim is that he believes that human desire shouldn’t be suppressed to fit a certain principle or religion. Rather, human desire should be followed and