Early Enlightenment thinker John Locke presented to the society documents which championed inalienable rights including life, liberty, and property. Liberty in specific becomes a most crucial topic in the debate deciding what conditions the state should prohibit speech offensive to some groups. Much later, John Stuart Mill built upon and constructed reformed ideas that contrasted the early enlightenment and would then be known as the Mature Enlightenment. In his works now classified as neoclassical utilitarianism- he was an avid follower of Jeremy Bentham, the father of Classical Utilitarianism-
There may also be some differentiating ideas regarding these two sources. An example of this may be that, even though Jefferson and Locke agreed that the people should be able to overthrow the government if their rights were encroached upon, Hobbes believed that this would lead to a state of nature, which wouldn’t end greatly. The first way that the Declaration of Independence and
• During the Enlightenment there was a Scientific Revolution • The enlightenment was also called the Age of Reason • The chaos of the Reformation and wars of religion had shaken a belief system that had been accepted by society in the Middle Ages • People began looking for natural law, the conditions that govern human behavior • Thinkers began to believe that the problems of society could be solved through reasoning • One of the first philosophers to search for the natural laws of government was England’s Thomas Hobbes. • He believed that people by nature were bad and needed strong government • He believed that people could avoid the nature of being bad by entering into a social contract • This was an agreement to give up individual freedom to live in an organized society
Thomas Aquinas promoted monarchy with mixed constitution, he stressed on the disadvantages of tyranny. He admitted that the rule by a single person could be the best and the worst form of government if it’s not exercised properly. He believed that compared to tyranny, democracy would be preferable. According to Aquinas, a tyrant is a person who rules for the benefit of himself rather than for the benefit of the state. The most important aim of the king is to achieve the common goals and well-being of the state.
Instead of life,liberty and property, Jefferson use life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Second, Baron de Montesquieu believed in a separation of power in the government. If separation of powers is present in a government, it would
He believes we can be trustworthy but we quickly turn selfish. He mentions qualities that seem to be the right thing to do but shows weakness instead, and it he rules with cruelness then it will make him strong. “We find some qualities that look like virtues, yet-if the prince practices them-they will Be his destruction, and other qualities that look like vices, yet- if he practices them-they will bring him safety and well-being.” Machiavelli’s conception of human nature reflected number of traits that inherent in
The book was written to justify King Williams’s revolt and resistance to King James II. Lock wrote against the pro-absolutist theories of Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes. The author repeated and put emphasis on his main points (The people are the absolute power in a society, equality and freedom of men, a just leader acts for the benefit of the society while a tyrant acts for his own benefit and unjust conquest is never justified) which are the main advocates for a just civil society. After establishing the difference between a paternal and civil society, Lock lays out the foundations and laws of how a government should rule internally and externally. I agree with the arguments that Lock is putting forth but believe that they can only be applied in certain cases and fully realizing them is very difficult.
Carr intentionally begins by expressing compelling arguments against what he maintains are misguided and ultimately damaging fundamentals of Utopian thinking so as to convince the reader of a Realist stance. Carr, in my opinion is successful in this regard. Carr critiques Utopianism for opting to ignore how the world really is. A prime example of this is the belief that public opinion can be relied on to judge rightly, that man upholds a moral code that is inherently good, and therefore public opinion is good. To claim that every man will possess a moral code identical to one another is a quintessential demonstration of Utopian’s lack of understanding of reality.
Does rationality actually lead individuals to this conclusion, though? If it doesn’t, it seems as though Locke’s entire foundation of natural rights falls apart, bringing down the tower of the social contract with it. The most obvious counter to the idea that rationality would lead to a preservation of “life, health, liberty, and possessions” is that it may not actually be rational for every individual to respect these foundational right. In a world of David and Goliath (negating the religious connotations from the story), it may be entirely rational for a Goliath-type figure to trample upon Locke’s foundational rights. Someone bigger and stronger than the rest of men can take anything he wants.
God and the forward march of history, Douglass believed, would bring the realization of truth, justice, and the brotherhood of man. As such, equality is not just necessary for the establishment of government but is also a requisite in maintaining a safe and stable nation. Most importantly, upon entering society individuals are required to alienate a modicum of freedom and liberty, but full equality can (theoretically) never be compromised. This, of course, will impact the state and inevitably require a
Changing any of the branches of government would shift the balance of power greatly in a certain direction which would in turn prompt a less efficient and effective government. As James Madison articulates in Essay no. 51 of the Federalist Papers, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” ; the theory behind the division or power between the branches is designed to maximise freedom and provide each branch some sense of individualism. An adjustment within the system would only serve to reduce the political institutions’ effectiveness. John Adams defended the balance of power given to the branches in the Constitution by stating: “In the mixed government we contend for, the ministers, at least of the executive power, are responsible for every instance of the exercise of it; and if they dispose of a single commission by corruption, they are responsible to a house of representatives, who may, by impeachment, make them responsible before a senate, where they may be accused, tried, condemned, and punished, by independent judges.”
Voltaire is most known for his philosophical ideas including, freedom of speech, love truth and pardon error, God is necessary for governments, the process of thinking logically, and the idea that we are all equal, but virtue separates us. Voltaire knew that it was dangerous to be right when the government was wrong, but governments need to permit freedom of speech among the people. This is, because the people of a country need to the government know when there needs to be a governmental change. François believed that virtue separates us from others, and so we are differentiated by how we treat one another. François Marie Arouet was sent to Tulle in 1715, and imprisoned twice, in 1717 and 1726.
Throughout the examination of the philosophers, both Machiavelli and Hobbes have identified similar theories about political power, however have different views on how the sovereign should behave, methods on becoming and staying in power, as well as his duties when it comes to the people. I personally believe that Hobbes approach and motive behind his theories is more beneficial as the main purpose is to protect society while Machiavelli’s approach motivated by self-interest and creates a corrupt ruler. Machiavelli and Hobbes both support the idea of a sovereign however have very different views on how the sovereign should behave. The
The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil