On the other hand, Werther takes an extremely Romantic approach, with his life and experiences demonstrating the limitations of a rational society. In Discourse on the Origin of Moral Inequality, Rousseau rationally determines that the emergence of society and the invention of property directly cause moral inequality between people, specifically, the rich and the poor. First, he establishes the state of nature as a basic system, with no complex morality or rationality involved, unlike the states of nature described by Hobbes and Locke. At the most fundamental degree, Rousseau places mankind at the same level as other animals. “when I consider him, in a word, as he must have left the hands of nature, I see an animal less strong than some, less agile than others…” (Rousseau 40) Contrary to those described by Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau’s state of nature does not involve complex rational ideas, but rather simple instincts such as sympathy and self-preservation.
Another example of resistance is Kant arguing for freedom. He claims that “all that is required for this enlightenment is freedom,” meaning that a person is free once, as he defines it, is no longer controlled by his or her impulses or by other people (What is Enlightenment?). Rousseau also took a similar stance because he argued that “man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (The Social Contract). His goal was to dispel inequality, even if it means resisting authority. He claims that free men stop being free when they cooperate with others because he will find out that there is inequality, so a social hierarchy is
Spinoza’s Ethics Benedict de Spinoza is one of the famous practitioners in 17th Rationalism and one of the early influential figures of Enlightenment. There are two compatible views, which are Spinoza is a moral anti-realist in the sense that he denies that there exist mind-independent moral properties and he holds that reason “demands that everyone love himself, seek his own advantage, that everyone should strive to preserve his own being as far as he can”. However, Spinoza’s approach to developing his positive moral theory is to reduce normative claims to considerations of self-interest in a manner reminiscent of Hobbes. Possibly, the difference between the Spinozist and the Hobbist approaches to egoism is that Spinoza provides a metaphysical
The Creature in his “State of Nature” exhibits his heroic temperament when helping humans in distress. The state of nature is a concept that was created during The Enlightenment by philosophers. It is essentially the state that man is when they were first brought onto Earth. During this state “men having no moral relations or determinate obligations one with another, could not be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious” (Discourse on Inequality, 18). Described by famous philosopher, Rousseau, humans in the state of nature are neutral, neither good nor bad, but it is the development of societies that causes evil.
King urges the pacifist man to view the importance of the demonstration morally. Whereby King states that much of the population "[are] more devoted to "order" than to justice; …[they] prefer a negative peace." Likewise, Thoreau presents a similar argument. He exemplifies that society has turned traditional, and it is up to man to "bend it to his will." He explores the question of "Why has every man a conscience, then?"
Every human being has his own dignity and a free will to do whatever a human being wants. Considering that Kant says “Every man has a rightful claim to respect from his fellow men, and he is also bound to show respect to every other man in return.” (J. W. Ellington, 1983, p.462). In other words, this quote leads us to the golden rule of ethics which is “treat others as you want treat yourself”. Thereby, the free will of one man should not touch the dignity of another man. Thus, Kant considers free will as the main source of morality.
(x) In order to feel guilt, one must be residing to a set morals and violate them. However, since “all values have to be gained and/ or kept by men’s actions” ,(Selfishness), Equality had been following not his individual moral code, as he had not developed his own morals, but the group morality of his society. Ultimately, Equality still believed in his society, as it was all he had ever known. “Tomorrow in the full light of day, we shall take our box and leave our tunnel open, and walk through the streets to the home of the scholars. We shall put before them the truth.
In order to determine whose idea of government is to be agreed upon, the proper way is to take into consideration why there exist two completely different ideologies of government where both forms of government believe are born generally with good nature. Like stated above, Locke believes people are fitted with understanding ( Locke two treatises ex. 77) and are under the “ law of nature’ where no one would want to hurt anyone ( Locke two treatises ex.6) and similarly, Godwin believes that men are born naturally “benevolent to their fellows’. However, both of them agreed that there will be an irrational and a greedy side of humans. The difference in their ideologies is their perspective on human nature against time.
Amir Romero-Harvey Research Pg.1 The philosopher Immanuel Kant said that lying was amorally wrong. He argued that all people are born with an "intrinsic worth" that he called human dignity. This dignity derives from the fact that humans are uniquely rational, capable of freely making their own decisions, setting their own goals, and guiding their conduct by reason. To be human, Kant states, is to have the rational power of free choice; to be ethical, and to respect that power in oneself and others. (Text.pg.116) Lies are morally wrong, for two reasons.
For him, men square measure born equal. is that the equality of men that defines the state of nature, however the implications of equality square measure completely different than those at the start explicit by philosopher. From equality arises hostility, and from hostility a state of war between all men: “From this equality of ability, arises equality of hope in achieving our ends. and thus if any 2 men need a similar issue, that yet they can not each fancy, they become enemies” (Hobbes, 1968: Ch. XIII).