This, according to Hobbes, is a contract or a moral obligation. For the sake of peace, people should give up their rights only if others do the same. However, Hobbes states that, the right of self-preservation is the one right that can never be given up because it is the right on which the contract is formed, “By all means we can, to defend our selves." (Hobbes, 1996). Ryan states that, “it appears we must renounce all our rights, save only the right to defend ourselves” (Ryan, 1996).
The main difference between a collectivists society and Equality’s philosophy of Objectivism is priority. Collectivists believe everyone should live for their brother, and we should give our love away, whereas Equality believes love, honor and respect should be earned. Equality believes you should have the right to choose your friends and ones you will love, but you should neither command or obey
In a simpler matter, you do what you do because of the way you are. To be truly morally responsible for what you do, you must be responsible for the way you are. But, you cannot be truly responsible for the way you are; therefore, you cannot truly be morally responsible for what you do. Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument.
One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos.
1. What is essential to the “preservation of liberty?” How should this “be so constituted?” The powers of government must be separated in order to preserve liberty To do this, the members of one branch should have little to no power over the selection of members of another branch This separation of powers ensures that no one branch gains control of the other two branches The people should have control and elect who fills most offices 2. Explain the following: “A dependence upon the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Man has the tendency to put his ambitions first and be greedy The government is made up of man; therefore there must be Constitutional safeguards restricting the actions of powerful government
Thoreau mentions it too, “..bt if it is of such nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say break the law” (Thoreau 6). They both encourage the individual to break the law if they believe it is unjust, there is nothing wrong with breaking the law if following would hurt you, the individual has the right to not follow any injustice. Both King and Thoreau want to end social injustice to improve the world. It is the responsibility of the individual to resist injustice since the government acts unjust due to the lack virtue, morality, and stamina from its people and leader. Although the government is filled with injustice Thoreau and King have hope that one day one individual will put an end to social
We can 't have a free government where the people cannot make the laws they are governed by. •Experience teaches people the need for being careful when creating free governments. •The representation should understand what people want and they should chase after the happiness of the people. •To create a new Constitution, the people in power should have the same goals from the people because the people give the ones in charge power. They only want to do so is by fair representation.
Why won't they let anyone read? People would never know what is actually right and wrong. Montag wants to change this cruel society and spread individuality, the most important characteristic anyone can have. If you have no independent thinking in society, it will become corrupt. You need leaders to have a thriving society and without different outlooks on issues it will take longer to solve the issue.
John Dos Passos once said, “Individuality is freedom lived.” The root of individuality lies in freedom. Without freedom, there is an inability to think for oneself and share one’s ideas. In a society where this freedom is lacking, people will not think for themselves and submit to whatever rule is enforced over them. In Fahrenheit 451, the government attempts to control freedom as a means towards reaching a perfect society. The “perfect” society that is created, comes at the cost of individuality.
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
From this it is safe to conclude that free speech would be a liberty of which society should protect. That being said, according to Locke free speech could very well be a liberty that one sacrifices upon entering a society. “But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property (…) that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy.” [Locke, Sect. 131] The question regarding Locke’s argument then becomes “does one lose the right to free speech when he enters a society from a natural state?” This all relies on whether or not speech has the ability to make society unsafe or uneasy. Words have the power to create conflict so therefore that would be a liberty that is taken away in Locke’s