Thomas More had an abundance of revolutionary ideas for his time, many of which he penned down in his famous work Utopia. More’s greatest focus in this short book is placed on exploring the possibilities and benefits of a new kind of government. His views on such things as freedom, community, and the innate nature of man were all considered when creating what More views as the epitome of a successful government. It is baffling to realize that, using these same principles of freedom, community, and the innate nature of man, another author could come to a conclusion in direct opposition with More’s outcome. Nevertheless, this is exactly what occurred when Thomas Paine, a political writer during the American Revolution, examined what his utopian society would look like.
Objectivism places great importance on the individual and says that most acts performed for your own benefit would be ethically correct, to that end it stresses that man must have a form of government that allows for individual liberties as well as an economic system that rewards individual achievements. I agree completely here when talking about the idea of politics respecting the rights of the individual and allowing you to pursue your own passions. My sticking point with this objectivist ideal is that any form of charity that involves self-sacrifice is unethical. Objectivism would tell me that giving money to someone that is going through a hard time would be wrong because I could be using that money to better myself. I on the other hand believe the Bible is clear in several places about the idea of charity for example in 1 John chapter 3 verse 17 the Bible reads “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?”
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher, historian and scientist mostly known politically for his social contract theory which he wrote about in his book Leviathan (1651). (Sorell,2017) In Leviathan, Hobbes establishes a certain doctrine in which he describes the foundation of states as a manner in which to asset mutual assurance in a society amongst all individuals; this later gives rise to his social contract theory. (Harding,2017) In Leviathan Hobbes primarily views government as a mode of ensuring collective security. One of Hobbes ideas are that every individual should surrender to the strongest political authority available if we want to survive living amongst each other. He justifies this by creating a hypothetical scenario of people living together before a society is established wereby everyone has to rely on their own strength to survive as there are no alliances to rely on and survival is purely based on strength-he refers to this as the State of Nature and to an extent anarchy which according to
This central commitment to power, and not a set of collective principles, is what leaves them susceptible to the fear in liberalism that Robin describes, a fear of sanction and loss of ability (2004, 18). While the Resistance is also afraid, their fear is transformed into a stable political emotion, hope, because their political claims are rooted in a deep love of shared principles to which they can aspire. This is why Kylo Ren murders the leader of the Empire in a sort of coup as an attempt to gain control, while the Resistance is a unified political force despite their relative weakness, diversity of personal motivation, and practical disputes. Both forces use the fear of loss as a motivator, though one uses the fear of losing power and the other, the fear
I argue that while Mill’s principle of utility supports freedom in the ways he claims, government interference, which Mill strongly opposes, is necessary in order for freedom of thought and expression to support Mill’s utility. In this essay, I will briefly discuss Mill’s principle of utility. Then, I will discuss Mill’s liberty principle, and outline his two main arguments in favor of freedom of speech and ideas. Next, I will explain how Mill argues that freedom of thought and expression supports his principle of utility. Finally, I will advance an argument as to how Mill’s principle of utility might be better supported by government intervention; or rather, how government interference is necessary for freedom of thought and expression to increase utility (in the way Mill claims).
Broken into two sections, the book’s first is of a theoretical approach and the second analyses instances of political structures, treaties, and international relations that support his theoretical assertions’. Carr, as is evident early on in the book, is highly critical of the idealist approach in world politics, referring to it as utopianism, labelling those with “the inclination to ignore what was and what is in contemplation of what should be” as utopians. Carr’s disdain for Utopianism and advocacy for Realism is a common thread throughout the book as it’s believed Carr’s original motivation in writing it was to debunk the pretentions of Liberalism not to become a pivotal work in the establishment of IR as an academic discipline, however he achieved both. The strong views which Carr demonstrates with
Thomas Hobbes a 17th century philosopher who is best known for his political philosophy. The idea that nature is competitive, where morality only appears when we enter into society and it is backed up by the power of the sovereign. Hobbes define human nature as sensational because sensation is the source of all of our thoughts. We seek out pleasant experience and we avoid unpleasant experiences. For example death is an unpleasant experience where people are fearful losing their lives.
There are several vital aspects to Machiavelli's regard he's one among the foremost important political theorists of his and our time, particularly looking back to the growth of realistic political approach. the primary factor one has to recognize so as to understand Machiavelli's thought is that he lived in turbulent political times at the start of the Renaissance time. He believes that the well-being of the state is that the responsibility of the ruler and will be achieved by any means possible, even by deceptions, treacheries, and intrigues. The ruler's personal morality is of way less importance than the goodness of the state because the ruler judged by the results of his reign instead of the means that he used. He magnificently declared that sensible rulers generally ought to learn "not to be good," they need to be willing to put aside
Locke is one of the pioneers of the liberalism as he emphasizes the importance of the property. According to him, everything based upon protection and improvement of the property, which merely provided by legislative power. This can be happened if the society combined with the government, unlike Hobbes, Locke mentions, people have a right to ruin the state when the governor does not preserve liberty, life and property which are the basic needs, for them. Locke refers that “Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right” by using this phrase, he argues that one who controlled the power, is used the power for his own private advantages, rather than what is good for commonwealth. Although being powerful does not mean to control over the weak ones, Gulistan Askay who was killed by her cousin in 2013, is one of the examples of the brutality of tyranny.
This essay is composed upon the belief that there should be a limit to what is allowed to be expressed when it is on the expense of others, both physically and mentally. Freedom of expression is a very broad term that causes definitional problems. One can express their political beliefs or thoughts on the economic crisis, but under the concept of free speech in a democracy, also voice hate speeches and offensive falsehoods. Mill would argue that these kinds of speech should be allowed… The English philosopher John Stuart Mill is known as one of the great defenders of liberty, and through his essay On Liberty he summarizes his thoughts on the relationship between authority and liberty. He argues against governmental interference when it comes to three main liberties; the freedom of thought and emotion, the freedom to pursue tastes, and the freedom to unite.