Totalitarian and authoritarian relates to centralized and dictatorial government that requires people strictly obey to them and lacking concern for opinions of others (Oxford, 2016). Mozi pointed out that there would be natural disasters if people agree with moral judgments of the Son of Heaven but not up to Heaven itself (Mozi, ch.12). In his view, the Heaven likes righteousness and hate the opposite that gives the standard to the emperor to rule the world (Mozi, ch.26). If there is tyranny, the Heaven would punish the king. This shows that the Son of Heaven does not have the absolute power to rule the world.
Tocqueville had his reservations about democracy, acknowledging that democracy is not perfect. There are legitimate concerns over the rule of the majority who would rather have representatives who agree with their views than ones who would create good laws . The tyranny of the majority not only allows for subpar laws but also makes it so that democratic government is not working towards the benefit of all is citizens. Khomeini would argue that Islamic government does not have this problem because rulers keep the good of their entire people in mind, because all who follow the divine path are destined for happiness. A ruler must not bow down to whims of the
Locke thinks civil law is superior to natural law because it outlines what is allowed and what is not allowed. Civil law does not allow men to interpret things for themselves. Turning to a government will always force one to give up some rights in order to endure safety and preservation of their possessions. Natural law lacks established and known laws, a known and unbiased judge, and the punishment of injustice. When entering a government, a man gives up two of his powers.
A view that Frankfurt, Watson and Taylor all share in common is the deepself view. The following view states that for an individual to be morally responsible for their actions, it must be in accord with your deepest values (e.g., second-order desires), then you are held accountable for your actions. However, the deep-self view is flawed and is demonstrated in the following example involving JoJo. JoJo is the evil dictator’s son who has been raised to think torturing people is perfectly okay and morally acceptable in society.
He starts talking about how heartily he accepte the motto term, " That government is the bestwhivh governs not at all" He is trying to imply that a man needs to be prepared for it in order to have a government. Government shows how successfuly men can be imposed on. For an example, including themselves. If one were to judge these mens by the effect of their actions, they automatically deserve to be punish.
In Equality’s society of Anthem by Ayn Rand, they have many rules and controls, or regulations. They have the rules in place so everyone is the same. The Council doesn’t want anyone to be different, or to have different thoughts. Equality’s new society will have no rules from the old society because he cultivates individuality, he loathed the old society’s rules, and he knows what it means to be an leper. To begin, Equality nurtures individuality.
The laws are there to keep the people believing they are equal. But, if they knew what they could have would they decide to stay in the society where they are told what to do their entire lives, or would they go with Prometheus to his new “modern” society. In Prometheus’s society I believe he will have rules that any civilized society needs. Although, he will not have restrictive rules that try to enforce equality.
The idea that a contract is needed in any society in order to accomplish more and achieve greater individual security for the price of some of their rights and freedoms is prevalent in both Mills’ and Rousseau’s novels. On the contrary, White supremacy is an underlying theme throughout The Social contract, while Mills’ calls out Rousseau for objectifying “peoples of color” by ignoring them from the contract as a whole. Due to this detrimental difference in the two philosophers’ beliefs, I have to side with Charles Mills’ and his racial contract. When it is all said and done, Mills’ appropriately addresses the problem and respectfully finds a solution that is not offensive to certain
In the above statement, Aristotle is arguing that a society can only be operational Surname 2 when there is a ruler and subjects that work towards attainment of their ‘similar’ goals. Aristotle asserts that the rulers have the capacity to come up with good plans, whereas the subjects are in charge of implementation, hence they can both work together towards achieving their mutual goals. Aristotle asserts that anarchy is conflictual when he uses the most cited reason that governance is necessary for the greater good of all (Aristotle 28). He argues that the state is a creation of nature, and human beings are naturally political in nature and they cannot exist without a state as they would be, “tribeless, lawless and hearthless one (Aristotle 28).”
In this essay I will analyze Hobbes's position on absolute sovereignty and its failure. He claims that absolute sovereignty is the only government form that works out for people because of human nature and also the need for stability. My essay will claim that this perspective has oversimplified the issue as it fails to consider the evils the state can do with absolute power. I will argue that Hobbes's stance on political authority has oversimplified the issue by overlooking the evils the state can do with absolute power. My argument will proceed in the following format: