He believed that the people should be the basis of the government and that the power of the government is derived from the people’s feelings towards it. In the social contract, the people can revolt against an ineffective government, and it is the people who decide when a government is not longer acting in the best interests of its people. The only rights that people surrender are those that prevent the enforcement of the law of nature, all other rights remain intact. Since the issue in the state of nature was unintended biases that originated from the lack of reason, Locke suggests the idea of a legislator to act as the supreme power that represents the general good of the commonwealth, and the executive, that is the supreme power by default in the absence of the legislator, but is bound by a constitution. Unbiased judges and courts would then be responsible for punishing the transgressors of the natural law of the people, instead of potentially prejudice citizens.
Human nature consists in instinct virtues of survival, but Confucius also believes that they are not all bad, just poorly dominated by political authority figures. The Chinese philosopher aspired that his teachings liberated his country, whereas society restraints natural state. Individual’s rebel against laws that interfere with happiness, therefore humans are less likely to experience happiness, and if dared to challenge policy makers then one are punished. Confucius focuses on the qualities of a human being naturally virtuous, whereas society sees it as chaotic herd waiting to
Confucianism has a close concern on social reality and strong sense of mission on history that ‘the country management and governess as own responsibility’ (Cline, 2007, pp.231). It refers that a person should keep learning and practice what has learnt to become benevolent and righteous for himself, and help others, manage state affairs as well as protect the peace of country (Confucius, 1994). This is a positive life attitude for human being relates to what called “Dao”. In contrast, the ideology of Taoism ignored and removed the barrier of interpersonal relationship, insisting to build peaceful in world based on the value orientation. The theory taught people to show no interest in physical success and social issues because everything has its own natural attributes ( 'Taoism and the arts of China ', 2001).
His main reasoning is about the people being ruled over. He believed that the use of the government was to ensure domestic tranquility. In Lao-Tzu’s “Thoughts from the Tao-Te-Ching,” states that “if a country is governed with tolerance, the people are comfortable and honest” (58 1-2). Lao-Tzu believed that the obligations of the leaders should only be for helping the people and that any work that the government does should have minimum involvement in its people’s lives, as well as it should not disrupt the earth around them. He wanted his government not to have as much power as it did; a democratic government in Lao-Tzu’s eyes was a more peaceful one.
...cience?? He believed that conscience should tell a person what to do not just a majority vote. To follow a government blindly ruins people they should only trust what they believe is right. The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation.
Montesquieu argued that to protect the rights of the nation and the security of destruction from the law; self governing bodies must possess individual powers to slow down the natural tendencies of an absolute monarchy. Basically Montesquieu thought that in order to get out of an absolute monarchy and to govern yourself; you must protect the rights of your country and stop the destruction of your country from the law. He thought that human beings could solve society's problems by using their ability to reason. Montesquieu thought that people should take a direct part in their government and not follow what a king or dictator says. That the people living in the country should decide what laws they live by and what there freedoms are.
Thus, the only time a person can be sure he is right is if he is constantly open to differing opinions; there must be a standing invitation to try to disprove his beliefs. Second, there is the criticism that governments have a duty to uphold certain beliefs that are important to the well being of society. Only "bad" men would try to undermine these beliefs. Mill replies that this argument still relies on an assumption of i... ... middle of paper ... ...s beliefs are not reflected in their conduct. As a result, people do not truly understand the doctrines they hold dear, and their misunderstanding leads to serious mistakes.
Ironically, throughout history those in power who develop many moral laws for society are ones who partake in the underground world of society’s forbidden fruits, which is what troubles Freud and many others. Both Freud and Nietzsche find flaws with human morality, but Freud is the one who attempts finding a solution. On The Genealogy of Morals is one long story about the triumph of values that should not triumph. Nietzsche believes we value common man for no good reason (Nietzsche 28). Freud in Civilization and its Discontents, attempts to break down how our moral standards have developed from society and our instincts, while attempting to create a solution to salvage civilization, because although Freud is not an enemy of society, he does believe it can be improved.
They should give people equality and should be the ones making sure that it is happening and making sure we are not bind to one another. The government has to be there for the individuals who may take advantage of the concept of free and do bad things because they have the choice to. For instance, lets go back in time before the civil rights era, when people refused service to people because of what they wanted to do. When you just allow people to do what they want, they can cause harm and hatred and turn people against each other. If everyone is against one another, then how can we ultimately grow or fight together in a war against other
Machiavelli was mainly interested in attaining and keeping political power. He believed people were inherently selfish and would, by nature, not respect the law or work for the common good, without civic virtues. The only way to ‘control’ these human urges was to instill national pride and mutual respect for all citizens of a state. The difference in Machiavellian thought, up to this point in history, from other philosophers was he believed political authority was no longer justified by religious or spiritual doctrines. Although Machiavelli believed this to be true, he still knew it was important for citizens to maintain a commitment for the common good, through national pride and respect.