John Locke believed that, “Every man has a property in his own person. This no one has a right to but himself.” Since man owned himself Locke believed he should also own the fruits of his labour too. When it comes to John Locke addresses very eloquently a vast array of issues in the realm of epistemology. Locke proposed that an essential condition for liberty to be enjoyed is ‘property’. To justify his perception of liberty he starts by explaining the power of mind, and how we already possess it and the ability to use it to decide if an action has to be continued or not, whichever the mind prefers.
He uses this modified naturalism to defend his philosophical perspective against to idealism and realism. The term ‘naturalized epistemology’ was introduced Quine in his famous article known as “Epistemology Naturalized” (1969). In this article he defends a naturalistic approach to epistemology, arguing that epistemology should be regarded as continuous with or even part of, natural science. Although Quine criticizes the version of empiricism adopted by the logical positivists and their immediate successors, he explicitly affirms a version of Hume’s
The main confusion of utilitarianism is that it has several interpretations. One of them claims that individuals should act for the public utility in favor of their own benefits. This first interpretation is an egoistic one, because people act in favor of the community with the only aim to have their own profits afterwards. Even though Rawls and Mill’s theories present similarities, the fundaments of the theories are the exact opposite. Rawls natural right theory privileges human rights over any other duty, whereas Mill’s utilitarian theory favors society over individual and natural rights.
He defines the theory of justice as a work of political philosophy and ethics Rawls (1971). His main aim was to bring together two fundamental political philosophies egalitarianism and libertarianism. Rawls' theory attempts to resolve this division by meeting the libertarian demand, for the most part, to respect personal freedom, and meeting the egalitarian demand of equality regarding economic redistribution. Rawls argues that the concepts of freedom and equality are basically the same. For justice to be truly just, everyone must be afforded the same rights under the law.
Introduction The philosophy of human rights attempted to examine the underlying basic of the concept of human right and critically looks at its content and justification. Several theoretical approaches have been advanced to explain how and why human rights become part of social expectations. One of the oldest western philosophies on human rights is that they are a product of a natural law, stemming from different philosophical or religious grounds. Other theories hold that human rights codifies moral behavior which is a human social product developed by a process of biological and social evolution (associated by Hume). Human rights are also described as a sociological pattern of rule setting (as in the sociological theory of law and the works of Weber).
The original position is a key point of Rawls’ theory of justice to set up the position for establish the principle of justice. This principle of justice is the fundamental principle to create well-ordered society which has equality and liberty. Rawls develop a theory of justice by revise the traditional social contract. He began with this statement to show his assumption “My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant” Rawls considered Kant is also contractarian because of contract tradition which is a part of moral of justice and to create political society by social contract. Rawls tried to take the social contract more higher or more abstract than tradition approach, he called “the original position” this is a condition that Rawls took it as an appropriate for the choice to choose the fundamental principle of justice for the society.
While Mill focuses freedom on individually and state, Petit argues that pure freedom is not being controlled by anything. Comparing those two gives the conclusion
As an empiricist, Hume would have held the view that all knowledge must be derived from experience. If Hume did indeed mean to assert that causal powers exist, though they are concealed from us, this would be inconsistent with his empiricist views. In fact, in Section 7 of the Enquiry, Hume asserted that the causal powers which some people speak of “is entirely concealed from us, and never discovers itself in any of the sensible qualities of the body”, and is also “not copied from any sentiment or consciousness of power within ourselves”. This means that there is no corresponding impression or idea which could give rise to the knowledge of necessary connection. Strawson attempts to address this problem by arguing that the