I will explain the arguments put forward by Kant to justify this domination and also shed some light on the practicality of Kant’s prediction. Other than Kant’s text, I will also include some secondary texts. Kant says that human actions are determined by natural laws like any other natural event. He says that what seems to be complex and chaotic in a single individual can be seen from the standpoint of the human race as a whole to be a steady and progressive slow evolution. Every individual, according to his own inclinations and purposes chooses his path, often in opposition to others; yet each individual and people, as if following some guiding thread, go toward a natural but to each of them unknown goal.
However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will. Generally, free will is a process in our mind that exist despite circumstances and changes in the environment. Some scientists believe that there is no such thing as free will; and describe free will as a random event which occurs in our brain. However, there is at least one counter-argument against it which is human tendency to take responsibility for what he does and going beyond other expectations. Moreover, human beings cannot predict the future and know whether their actions are right or wrong.
To demonstrate his theory on society and government, Paine visualizes “a small number of persons settled in some… part of earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first people of any country. In this state of natural liberty, society would be their first thought” and “the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same” (5). I find this way of reasoning to be totally preposterous -- there is no way he can be confident that “society” would be the first thought in every single person’s head and that everyone would seek help from one another. To show why I think this, let’s look at “On the Present Ability of America, with some Miscellaneous Reflection,” where Paine used a similar method of reasoning to come up with another assumption that the U.S. has the ability to compete against Great Britain -- saying that “’Tis not in numbers but in unity that our great strength lies: yet our present numbers are sufficient to repel the force of all the world” (107). Paine was a political activist and philosopher, not a military leader; I highly doubt he had a full grasp of neither the U.S. nor the Britain’s naval capability to say that the U.S. can rival against the world.
Rational knowledge argues we are just by accident and life itself is our purpose. Breathing and functioning which are products of particle formation is our purpose. Our purpose is not some profound gift given to us by a God or ourselves. We are simply a body created by the coalescence of random cells who give us functionality. There is no set instructions on how to live or set explanations on what to live for; we are constructed by chance and our functionality is simply to live within the body that randomly formed us.
Modernist worldview Modernity includes a search for absolute, unquestionable, rational certainty, based on logic and evidence alone. (Of course, many “modern philosophers” admitted such may be ultimately impossible for finite beings, but that didn’t stop them from holding it as an ideal and continuing the search.)  Post-modern worldview Postmodern is simply the rejection of certainty in the synthetic realm, even in science. Postmodern is also defined by the belief that all truth claims are infected by “belief”. That is, there is no such thing as “a view from nowhere.” Even what counts as “logic” and “evidence” is value-dependent, arising from within a story, a perspective.
This is known as the nature theory of human behaviour and is the view adopted by naturalists or nativists (Landau, 2009). On the other hand, there is a group that believes how people think and behave is the summation of what is taught and influenced by the environment or the surrounding people. Psychologists are usually a part of this group. This is known as nurture theory of human behaviour and is the view espoused by empiricists (Spencer et al., 2009). Empiricists insist all or most behaviours and characteristics stem from learning.
Section I: Short answer essays Question (1) The great philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had divergent views on the type of people that would create a state of nature. Though, both philosophers belong to the same era, their arguments are different. Both of them conceive a different state of nature, and at the same time argue differently on the intentions to move out of the state of nature. “State of nature” is a term that describes the perceived situation of mankind before the establishment of a state, in which anarchy prevailed as a form of rule. Hobbes’ state of nature leads to the monarchic system of governance.
In the case of humans it was originally perceived that we are born with an essence or purpose in life, but existentialist denied it and came out with their own version that everyone is born without any essence. It is for us to discover our own purpose as we evolve in our life. This is the basic principle to existentialism and hence they came out with their own manta as “existence
Like many philosophers before him, Hobbes wants to present a more solid and certain account of human morality than is contained in everyday beliefs. Plato had contrasted knowledge with opinion. Hobbes contrasts science with a whole raft of less reliable forms of belief - from probable inference based on experience, right down to "absurdity, to which no living creature is subject but man" (Leviathan, v.7). What is the political fate of this rather pathetic sounding creature - that is, of us? Unsurprisingly, Hobbes thinks little happiness can be expected of our lives together.
By 1857, the British, through the East India Company, directly ruled two thirds of India. The remaining third was overseen by Indian princes who paid tribute to the British. The British not only dominated the Indian economy, sending profits back to Britain: they also imposed their values on the Indian people by preventing Indian soldiers from occupying high ranking positions in the army and introducing social and land reforms. Thus, even though the British government was not engaged in direct imperialism, the British East India Company still had a strong, controlling hand in the Indian way of life. To begin with, it can be observed that the British colonizers did indeed improve Indian civilization by developing means of communication and transport further than what had already been established.