Fourth, the autonomous individual becomes the focus for creating a political system and for evaluating its claim to legitimacy, and the epistemologies of Hobbes and Locke both support the model of the autonomous and free individual. It is the individual's own capacities that provide knowledge. In fact, one must not rely upon the authority of the Church, the state, or of tradition. Thus, there is an epistemic autonomy supporting political autonomy for the individual. Hobbes's Leviathan is replete with witty and snide comments aimed at debunking the
The following paper will reveal how the United States responded to the Schuman Plan and further discusses the respond to it. In the following paragraphs I will emphasis on the reasoning of the US government. As a matter of fact, the US is a diverse and highly populated country. Thus, the reasoning of the general public will be left out because it is outside the limits of this paper. For the analysis, I will make use primary and secondary sources.
Introduction Historically international development was conceived by US both as a strategic (geopolitical, foreign policy) project and as an objective process of economic progress. Arguably international cooperation for international development, in its various forms, was designed as a means of ensuring that post-colonial states in their pursuit of national development would not succumb to the lure of communism and fall prey to the model presented by the USSR. Hence international development can be perceived not only as a model and strategy for reviving the economic growth but to also provide conditions of political stability for the neoliberal world order and a local benign or human face to imperialism. That is why nongovernmental development
Big changes requires big ideas. During the 18th century in Europe well educated people called philosophes explored ideas about, how to change the society in which they lived. Relying on reason and belief that natural laws held key to understanding human behavior, the philosophes latched onto one big idea also known as freedom. They believed that allowing individuals more freedom and reducing government control would make society better. But what was the central idea of thinkers who led the intellectual revolution of the late 17th and 18th centuries?
To begin, Locke and Hobbes were two outstanding thinkers who argued in different ways, Hobbes believed in the legitimacy of absolute monarch and Locke believed in a government based on the will of the people being governed. They both represented a growing trend in European society in the 17th and 18th centuries to use reason as the final judgment of things, including the conduct of kings. They contributed to modern political science, and they both had similar views on where power lies in a society. Hobbes has influenced to some degree what can be done to change a government by the people, the contributions Hobbes did led to the foundation of what today is the conservative party. On the other hand, Locke was very influential in shaping modern politics, our current view of human nature, the nature of individual rights, the popular constitutions that exist today and the building blocks of the liberal party.
In his address to Congress on January 5, 1957, President Eisenhower, similar to President Truman, stated his belief that the United States should contribute economically to strengthen free Middle Eastern countries. In this way he hoped, like Truman, to discourage these countries from turning to the Soviet Union and communism to solve troubles. President Eisenhower also said that the United States should provide military aid to Middle Eastern countries who seek such aid (Eisenhower). Again like Truman the reasoning for this was the hope that the aid would help these countries resist any communist force or aggression. Unlike President Truman, Eisenhower called for the United States to put armed forces in the Middle East to protect and secure the independence of Middle Eastern nations from Communist armed aggression (Eisenhower).
Despite the slogan proclaimed in Truman's speech about "the US support of free people in their struggle against armed minorities or external pressure,"(Containment and the Cold War: American foreign policy since 1945, the US support was, depending on the region, more or less. In addition, it should be noted that the permission of these free peoples to use military force to protect their freedom was not always asked. In general, it should be noted that Europe was the priority region for deterrence policy. From the point of view of strategic and economic importance, Europe stood in the first place.
This does not necessarily mean that we should do away with nation states as such. Rather the logical step towards achieving these ends would be to endorse global principles of justice and global institutions, like the United Nations and perhaps regional arrangements, the importance of which as security actors has already been noted (Kaldor 2010, p. 279) and could continue to grow. In conclusion, this paper has tried to demonstrate that the idea of transformational pacifism can be supported by and work together with the three strands of cosmopolitanism. While it can be said that cosmopolitanism is in itself a utopian ideal as the world we live in falls short of many of the ideas cosmopolitanism holds most important (Caney 2010, p. 161), this paper would claim that the mere fact that the world does not work like this currently does not mean that we should not strive towards
Placing autonomy as a central value contrast with alternative frameworks a liberal society must maintain, such as “an ethic of care (and) utilitarianism” (Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2003). In essence this debate can be labelled as the debate between ‘autonomy and paternalism’ (Deaking, 2010, p141). Autonomy is regarded as the “fundamental right of individuals to shape their own future through voluntary action” (Van Boom et al, 2010, p1). It is expected that a liberal society protects the “democratic rights and liberties” of individuals, as this will avoid undesired authoritarian approaches of governance (Benn, 2009). As the UK is a state that operates under democratic rule, this entails the protection of individual rights and liberties.