There was a big difference between both. Slaves had no rights, or freedom, and weren’t paid. Indentured servants were paid. Both can’t sell products they make. Bothe of them have a master.
They go further by explaining that the root of the problem is money and welfare. It is impossible to be in the state of nature because we live in a society with a governing body. And if all land was common, there would be no preservation of others because eventually resources will decrease to the point when humans won’t be able to survive. We can’t trust humans to engage in a productive lifestyle without government intervention due to our innate behavior and
Strict power is important, absences of this allows us to forget that we are all equal and no one is higher than the other. Moreover, we lose our sense of flaw and that we, ourselves make mistakes. With the thought that government does not stand for the people, if us [people] all enjoy equal rights and cannot enjoy them in similar manner than we fall to our own quarrel. Nevertheless, in product to war the fruit will be unable to bear because it will be uncertain. There would be no productivity.
Karl Marx and Max Weber both agreed that capitalism generates alienation in modern societies, but the cause for it were both different. For Marx it is due to economic inequality in where the capitalist thinks that the workers worth nothing more than a source of labour, that can be employed and dismissed at will. This causes the workers to be dehumanised by their jobs (in the past, routine factory work and in the present-day, managing demands on a computer), which leads to the workers finding slight satisfaction and feeling incapable of improving their situation. It was noted by Marx four methods on how capitalism alienates workers. The first, is alienation from the function of working.
Consequentialists are a group of philosophers who asses whether an act is right or wrong based on the consequences of the action. There are different types of consequentialism including: ethical egoism, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. These three branches of consequentialism will be discussed later in this paper. A supererogatory act is something that is good but is not obligatory; these acts involve rendering aid to others that go above moral requirement. Consequentialists claim that there are no supererogatory acts; an act either produces the most pleasure and is therefore morally good, or it brings about pain and is morally bad.
Without private property, workers or laborers would not also exist. What does alienation means? Alienation is a condition of workers in a capitalist economy, resulting from a lack of identity with the products of their labor and a sense of being controlled or exploited or simply being estranged of oneself. According to Fall (2007), to be alienated from something is to lack wholehearted identification with it and instead to regard it as strange or alien and perhaps as an obstacle in one 's way or as menacing to oneself. Private property ownership arises and as it arises owners seek workers to grow and earn profit.
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.
One of the objections which I consider to be of strength is one regarding the over flexibility of the sanction principle. The in-built nature of utilitarianism as a theory, fails to impose plausible corrective consequences to those actions which do not comply with the stipulated rules of the moral theory. Though the theory claims to not promote actions of self benefit, it fails to blatantly rebuke actions contravening general morality, by offering acceptance to such given that the justification provided corresponds with the guidelines of the theory. This objection is of collorally effect to a line of criticisms. Bernard Williams presents a reasonable flaw of the theory not being able to uphold justice and fairness.
In bourgeoisie society, there is living labor, but it is used to increase collected labour but in a communist society, collected labour exists but it is broadened, improved and shows appreciation and encouragement to the existence of the laborer. Communist robs no man of the authority to apposite the products of civilization. Mark speaks about different divisions of communist and literature. He mentions the reactionary socialism which includes the bourgeois socialists which are individuals who fight against the bourgeoisie society and their development of production. They are against the bourgeoisie because they see their approach of life as a hazard.
It ignores human needs and personal aspirations. For Helvetius, to be free the government must provide rules that teach man right from wrong, and thereafter man would be free. In conclusion, I have detailed explained the freedom and free will in reference to the one explained by the great philosophers Helvetius, Hegel, Fichte and Rousseau. I also took into account the criticism of their theories. From the above essay they are well described and that how does this theorist are the same and their criticism.