Humans have free will, but God knows their fate. In Book V of the City of God, Saint Augustine discusses the matter of fate and free will pertaining to having a relationship with God. Within that section of the text he makes many statements about how humans have the freedom to make their own choices, but God ultimately knows the outcome. Logically, this make sense. If God created everything, then this would mean He has created everything in the past, present and future.
Individuals form a Commonwealth to escape the state of nature so that “one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their peace and common defense” (112). This leads to the question: to what extent does Hobbes’ theory of self-interest contradict an individual’s supposed obedience to his sovereign? According to Hobbes, the sovereign assures security to an individual through his absolute power, but obedience to the sovereign does not always correlate with an individual’s self-preservation. Due to the state of nature being violent, it is optimal for individuals to relinquish their rights to an absolute sovereign. If one agrees with Hobbes’ theory about life in a state of nature being “nasty, brutish, and short” (82), then
Aristotle in his best-known work Nicomachean Ethics, discusses many fundamental things like happiness, friendship, pleasure, justice, human good. He gives us an image of the good (and even best) life and tells how to achieve it, he shows us the difference between false and true happiness, explains how friendship works and why we need to seek for the impossible. After two millenniums his works are still extremely popular and fundamental to every philosopher or anyone interested in this discipline. Like Socrates and Plato, Aristotle chooses virtues to be his main objects of discussion. The first thing that comes to mind when one is asked ‘what is it you want most of all?’ Is human happiness.
It spoke about all men as equal creations and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Every individual has the God-given right to live life, to live in freedom, the right to own and accrue property. For these God-given rights to be protected, governments are inducted by the people, deriving their unbiased power from the consent of the people. When the government fails to protect these rights and instead violates on them, the people have the responsibility to abolish or amend that government and to introduce a new government that actually achieves its rightful purpose. These rights are still very important these days as it was before.
However, humans’ egoism and selfishness disturb others’ freedom, because they think freedom is something that will solve their life problems and reduce responsibility from them. These circumstances make humankind incapable of using their freedom and create chaos. Thus, persons realize that it is necessary to create something that can control them and prevent chaos. And the example of comparison between authority and freedom is Jesus and The Grand Inquisitor in “The Brothers Karamazov”. On the one hand is Jesus
For negative freedom, it is the sphere of control and for positive freedom it is the question of who is in control (129). The driving question for “positive” political freedom is “what or who, is the source of control or interference that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that” (Berlin, 122). This sense of political freedom requires a person being his own master and not relying on any outside influence (131). Positive political freedom is about man thinking for ones self and deciding for ones self, thereby establishing who they are to the world, on their own accord. Rationality and reason are also central to this sense of political freedom.
The level to which someone may work out their freedom can be described as their “freedom.” Therefore, the more rules enforced upon someone’s freedom the more limited their independence. Although no energy, preserve God, can eliminate freedom, they can restrict and even eliminate somebody 's independence. In the article Capturing an Hippo Henry Orwell claims that, “when the white-colored man changes tyrant it is his own independence that he destroys” (Orwell, 704). Totally freedom is indestructible; an example of Orwell’s devastation of independence but maintenance of freedom is given in his article. In this essay there enough facts about destroying freedom and consequences of this.
The social contract is based on the voluntary surrendering of rights and personal liberties in exchange for protection by a higher agency, the government. The social contract therefore, is a form of cure for the state of nature existence, where man’s primary drive is the selfish need to preserve themselves, meaning they could use any force and personal resources to acquire all property deemed useful to the propagation of their interests. In the social contract theory, a human agrees to ‘give up’ their rights to liberty as a means to the cause, which is realizing the greater good for the people in the
Equality 7-2521 is raised under a state motto that claims “Mankind is all” and that “by the grace of our brother are we allowed our lives” (Rand 21). The line of this motto that sticks out as most able to be subjectively interpreted claims “We exist through, by and for our brothers who are the State”(21), as to say that all actions of man must contribute to the betterment of mankind rather than the individual. With Equality’s finding of the dark tunnel came his lust for discovery that led to his creation of a machine: the light box, that could be of betterment of society. He created the light box to present before the council hoping his gift could contribute to the betterment of mankind; however, the council interpreted its own rules differently, claiming that what Equality had believed to be a selfless act for the betterment of all was really a heinous crime of selfishness. The council believes he has dared to “think that [his] mind held greater wisdom than the minds of [his] brothers” (71) and that because his actions were not collective they “cannot be good” and contribute to the betterment of all mankind.
They believe that people learn about themselves best from their experiences. The Existential movement opposes the traditional ways of thinking in contemporary philosophy. It lays emphasis on the individual experience and the formation of essence through the act of living. One of major principles in his book Existentialism and Human Emotions is that “existence precedes essence” (Sartre 15). For the existentialists, Man is “thrown” into a godless universe, but he realizes himself through his free will and actions.