Wilson is absolutely sure in his point of view; and according to that in “The Biological Basis of Morality” he says “I believe in the independence of moral values, whether from God or not, and I believe that moral values come from human beings alone, whether or not God exists” (1998, p.112). In other words, it means that E.O. Wilson believes that moral values are independent from God or another perfect being; and come along with humans. It is not necessary to be a God to distinguish what is good and wrong. However, there is one common thing that Wilson shares with Kant and that thing is free will.
It is evident in this particular writing, and many others, that Jefferson is a metaphysical idealist. He invokes Nature’s God as being the giver of law and the rights of man. In being so given by God, a right is personally held as property which cannot be abridged and is such an important gift that it ‘impels them to separate’ from those who might fetter these things. The gift is held by all mankind equally and separately, not as a whole; keeping with Jefferson’s views on property rights. Truth is ‘self-evident’, all mankind is ‘created equal’, and are granted ‘unalienable rights’.
Therefore, for Locke, sovereignty does not reside in a monarch, but the people. With this idea, Locke suggests that people do not need to be afraid of their sovereign. There is no need for Hobbes’s Leviathan because, “men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent” (The Second Treatise of Civil Government, 8). For Hobbes, a civilized peaceful society would not exist if it they did not have a leviathan. On the contrary, for Locke, the existence of the government was not necessary for society to exist, it was necessary for mankind to exist comfortably.
Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy. Firstly, an absolute monarchy as proposed by Hobbes would require that people relinquish their own rights and to submit to one absolute power, which Locke feels is counterintuitive his understand of humans in the state of nature. A distinctive feature of Locke’s state of nature is perfect freedom for people to carry out their own wills without hindrance. Hence, Locke’s main critique of Hobbes’ absolutism is that people living under a Hobbesian
Due to this, Locke believed “Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another…” (Locke 87). Furthermore, Locke believed “…absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is… inconsistent with civil society” because those who gave the consent to be governed would never willingly choose to follow a leading body that is more crooked than the state of nature that were set by God. (Locke 90). When the government becomes forceful and tyrant, Locke believes people “…should then rise themselves, and endeavor to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected…” (Locke 225). Government is not stationary; it responds to human developments and human needs.
Natural rights are those not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. The idea of human rights is also closely related to that of natural rights, some acknowledge no difference between the two, regarding them as synonymous, while others choose to keep the terms separate to eliminate association with some features traditionally associated with natural rights. Natural rights, in particular, are considered beyond the authority of any government or international body to dismiss. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an important legal instrument enshrining one conception of natural rights into international soft law. Natural rights were traditionally viewed as exclusively negative right, where as human rights also comprise positive rights.
Free thought broadly means that our thoughts and our thinking should be purely based upon the reality, science and logic instead of being based upon the religious beliefs and values, customs, traditions or others which have no any resemblance or connection with reality in any sense or by any means. Free thought is opposite to the conservative thinking. Free thoughts let one to choose freely what is right, good, or even best for a person whereas conservative thinking binds a person in the limits and boundaries of the customs and
Humans are given the freewill and freedom to decide their life. They know what is right and wrong, good and evil, just and unjust, and what is moral and immoral. However, there are instances when people are being deceived and do what is wrong, unjust and immoral in the eyes of God. But these do not mean that humans are created evil. Human morality can be traced back in the theological and philosophical perspective.
The ancient is seeking the good life, right order and supporting virtue while the modern philosophers are concerned with peace and order. The moderns’ numerous theories undermine the purpose of government and reduce politics to power. Hobbes preserves that the purpose of the government is to keep up peace and order. In addition, he suggests the ruler should be a sovereign who has supreme power, which is a power of the people. The state of nature creates a paradox where people move from complete liberation to an wholly sovereign submission.
These rights are natural because human nature being there primary source of evolution. • Violation of human rights by the state The concept of AFSPA, can be highly refuted by this school of thought. As according to them, the man made laws can be called as just and fair, only if theyare subjected to objective moral principles, and they does not violate the natural rights of the individuals, on whom they are imposed. The state by enacting AFSPA, to attain national integrity and to fulfill the rhetoric of nationalism, tries to violate those basic human rights of the individuals, which are conferred to them by an eternal authority, which prohibits the state from violate them. The provisions of AFSPA, such as section 4(a), gives the officer in charge, a power to arrest anyone, with minor suspicion of him possessing fire arms, and anyone who is part of an assembly of more than 5 people, and even kill them , if they according to that officer are trying to abscond.