The United States of America was founded on the basis of individual liberty more than the ideal of the common good, although the Founders trusted that individualism and a diversity of opinions would protect natural liberties, and thus the public good. To determine whether America was designed to encourage individualism or communalism, one can compare the writings of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau to the nation’s founding documents.
While the these founding documents echo both Locke and Rousseau, it can be found that many of the writings were inspired more so by the ideas of Locke, the supporter of individual rights, than by those similar of Rousseau, the crusader for the common good. For example, while the Constitution promises to, “promote the General Welfare”, an idea Rousseau would have found appealing, it first pledges to “provide for the common defense”. This implies that the general welfare can be protected, in large part, by the protection of physical property, also known as the common defense. The protection of individuals and their property from the violence of
…show more content…
Throughout The Federalist No. 10, James Madison frequently used the term “public good”. What Madison proposed was that the public good is best protected by representatives elected from masses that hold an extensive variety of opinions. While this does put the security of some rights into the hands of the government, it also demonstrates a remarkable faith in both the individuals in charge and the individuals who elected them. The more a group of individual leaders feels the ability to express their differences, the safer the rights of the people will be, because as Madison asserted, “the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security.” Thus, the protection of individual rights could be of benefit to a Republic that depends on the diversity and wisdom of a popularly elected
The enlightenment ideas affected politics for both the French and the American peoples through the form of government and individual rights. Thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, believed in the individual right of man as a citizen of a sovereign nation. In 1789, Marquis de Lafayette used Rousseau and other free thinker’s ideas to draft his Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to the National Constituent Assembly in France (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoinette/revolution/america_france.html). This established universal rights for individuals that always existed at all times. The document shows many similarities to American documents such as the declaration of Human Rights in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. For instance, they all show a relationship through the declaration of individual rights such as free speech and freedom of religion. However, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen focuses more on individualism while American documents focus more on a community “We the People” (http://www.pbs.org/marieantoin...
What was the common good for all Americans in 1776? Thomas Paine, a political activist during America’s struggle for independence from England, argues in Common Sense, a pamphlet published in the Pennsylvania Magazine, with the American colonists, demanding a revolt with the British crown (Thomas Paine). He passionately believes that the answer to the “…benefit of all people in [American] society” (Thomas Paine) will result from the freedom of oppression for the thirteen American colonies. Common Sense, “the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era”, remains noted by historians as one of the most influential pieces of literature during the era of the American Revolution
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
The Rule of Law has always been a widely discussed topic throughout the history of modern political thinking. It can be defined as, “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law” (Dictionary.com). English philosopher John Locke and Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau have both developed well-rounded and detailed accounts on the Rule of Law and its crucial role in ensuring democracy and freedom in society. Despite the undeniable success and importance of their works and ideas, I believe ________ constructed a more persuasive and influential argument in explaining the extensive effects of the Rule of Law on government and society.
There are many different ways in which the Enlightenment affected the Declaration of Independence and the U.S Constitution. One way was the by the idea of a Social Contract; an agreement by which human beings are said to have abandoned the "state of nature" in order to form the society in which they now live. HOBBES, LOCKE, and J.J. ROUSSEAU each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society's protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens. Locke believed that governments were formed to protect the natural rights of men, and that overthrowing a government that did not protect these rights was not only a right, but also an obligation. His thoughts influenced many revolutionary pamphlets and documents, including the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights was created as a listing of the rights granted to citizens, the Bill of Rights serves to protect the people from a too powerful government. These civil rights granted to U.S. Citizens are included in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, Locke’s ideas about checks and balances and the division of church and state were later embodied in the U.S. Constitution as well. The Constitution replaced a more weakly organized system of government as outlined under the Articles of Confederation.
During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison stresses that “measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.” Madison philosophized that a large republic, composed of numerous factions capable of competing with each other and the majority must exist in order to avoid tyranny of majority rule.# When Federalist No. 10 was published, the concept of pluralism was not widely used. However, the political theory that is the foundation for United States government was the influential force behind pluralism and its doctrines.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
In The Social Contract philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau discuss their differences on human beings’ place of freedom in political societies. Locke’s theory is when human beings enter society we tend to give up our natural freedom, whereas Rousseau believes we gain civil freedom when entering society. Even in modern times we must give up our natural freedom in order to enforce protection from those who are immoral and unjust.
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”
Within representative democracies freedom of speech, of opinion and religion are factors which legitimate government must have. In this way the public are free to participate within politics and challenge their leaders, and while Madison feared the tyranny of the majority he saw great merit in allowing the public a voice. These freedoms are central to modern representative governments and can be evidenced by having opposing parties rather than single party and allowing non governmental groups to have a say. This differs to old systems in which speaking out against the monarch could result in being beheaded or such as the Soviet Union where the public were punished for disobeying the authority of the government often being dispatched with out of the public eye.
The argument referring to the nature of human beings and government is one that been debated for hundreds of years by many of the world’s greatest minds. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are two opposing philosophers who have devoted many years to studying this subject. For Locke, the state of nature— the original condition of all humanity before civilization and order was established—is one where man is born free, equal and have rights that others should respect, such as the right to live and the right to liberty. For Hobbes, however, the state of nature is one of constant war; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short ; it is, in Hobbes’ mind, civilization that separates humans from their primitive state. Hobbes believed that an individual’s only
Philosophy is an ever-growing field of study due to the fact that people are constantly yearning to discover the underlying truth in all of life’s matters. Dating back all the way to before the life of Jesus Christ, a great Greek philosopher by the name of Plato, exemplified this nature. He earnestly sought to find the root of true knowledge by using the Divided Line. Plato laid a strong foundation for the future of philosophy and since his time other intelligent philosophers have arose. In the seventeenth century two of the most vital philosophers in all of history came on the scene, René Descartes and John Locke. In attempt to discover how one acquires true knowledge, these two philosophers developed extensive concepts and ideas that greatly