Based on the "Right Theory" of John Locke, the 17th century British philosopher, He argued that "laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health , liberty or possessions." Food is considered as a possession by other person so if you steal, you can be a violator to "the laws of nature." Therefore, based on Locke's theory stealing can viewed as immoral or unethical. In addition, he said that every person has "the rights and duties" to each other. Meaning, you have the right to acquire possessions including the your basic needs such as food. And other people, on other hand have also a moral duty not to rob you. However, in the same principle of "right and duties" we could use it to remedy the possibility of stealing food …show more content…
In consequentialist theories of John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, the act of stealing of food for a hungry child could be consider as moral or ethical. Under the theory of Ethical Egoism it state that "an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable only to the agent." Meaning, stealing of food for a starving child could be favorable either to a person who perform the act of stealing or to the child. It is favorable to the theft because it satisfied his desire to help and save the child from hunger. Moreover, in consequentialist normative principles " it require us that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action." Then, identify if the "total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences." If based in our analysis the good "consequences are greater," then "the action is morally proper. In the given situation, stealing for food for a hungry child suggest plenty of good consequences when we try to focus on the true and good intention of the agent. We may think that he is good because he/she is trying to save only the boy from hunger or even from tragic death. Thus, millions of children around the world had died because of
John Locke's Theories in The Declaration of Independence. When looking at the Declaration of Independence and the justifications which Jefferson used in order to encourage the dissolve of the ties between the United Colonies and Great Britain, it becomes apparent how much of the theories of John Locke that Jefferson used as the basis for his argument. Focusing particularly on the second paragraph of the Declaration, the arguments for the equality of each man and the formation and destruction of governments come almost directly from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. The other arguments in the Declaration of Independence deal primarily with each citizen's rights and the natural freedoms of all men, two areas that Locke also spent much time writing on.
Consequentialism is a term used by the philosophers to simplify what is right and what is wrong. Consequentialist ethical theory suggests that right and wrong are the consequences of our actions. It is only the consequences that determine whether our actions are right or wrong. Standard consequentialism is a form of consequentialism that is discussed the most. It states that “the morally right action for an agent to perform is the one that has the best consequences or that results in the most good.” It means that an action is morally correct if it has little to no negative consequences, or the one that has the most positive results.
Personal identity examines what makes a person at one time identical with a person at another. Many philosophers believe we are always changing and therefore, we cannot have a persisting identity if we are different from one moment to the next. However, many philosophers believe there is some important feature that determines a person’s identity and keeps it persistent. For John Locke, this important feature is memory, and I agree. Memory is the most important feature in determining a person’s identity as memory is the necessary and sufficient condition of personal identity.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both have theories of human nature, but have very differentiating views of what life is like for humans in this state of nature before any civil society or government authority. Hobbes has a very negative view of human nature while Locke has a very positive outlook on human nature. The two different views have lead to many critiques about which theory may be stronger.
Throughout John Locke’s, Second Treatise of Government, he uses several methods to substantiate his claims on the natural right to property. Locke’s view on property is one of the most fundamental and yet debated aspects of his works within his respective view on politics. Locke views property as one of humankind 's most important rights, contending with the right to life and the right to liberty. However, certain claims made by Locke regarding property are may be unfeasible, which could be deduced from the time period in which he lived. Some of Locke’s arguments appear to be carefully considered and well executed, while others lack the equality that Locke strives towards. John Locke’s theory of property, is a somewhat well supported claim
In order to form an opinion on what Locke would do in the case of the 80 year old man who has been charged with war crimes that he genuinely does not remember one has to analyse the complex definitions surrounding identities. This essay will look into Locke’s thoughts and theories and by process of elimination speculate on how Locke would have evaluated the claim.
In utilitarianism the common goal is to create the most happiness for the most amount of people. Mills definition of the Greatest Happiness Principle “holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (540) If this principle is the case then as a utilitarian your actions of good should promote the most happiness. This way of thinking can really produce some wrong answers and actions to moral questions. For example, say you and your family are starving and in need of food. The only possible way to get food would be to steal it. In general society finds it morally wrong to steal under any circumstances. But as utilitarian you have to ask, would my actions of stealing food promote the most happiness for the most people. You need to take into account the people you are making happy and the people you are hurting. On one hand, you would be promoting happiness for you and your and entire family, and on the other hand, you would be hurting the storeowner by stealing some of his revenue. Utilitarian ideas tell you that you should steal the food because your actions are promoting happiness and the absence of pain for the least amount of people. There are other examples I found when doing some research like doctors going against morals to save more sick people by letting one healthy person die
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
I will argue that Locke believed that if you remain the same person, there are various entities contained in my body and soul composite that do not remain the same over time, or that we can conceive them changing. These entities are matter, organism (human), person (rational consciousness and memory), and the soul (immaterial thinking substance). This is a intuitive interpretation that creates many questions and problems. I will evaluate Locke's view by explaining what is and what forms personal identity, and then explaining how these changes do conceivably occur while a human remains the same person.
On considering the consequentialist theory we need to evaluate the consequences of the situation and action is needed to be taken which seems to be apt. To some extent we Conseqentialist theory works to argue but Deontologist theory works even more better in this situation
Egoism is a teleological theory of ethics that sets the ultimate criterion of morality in some nonmoral value (i.e. happiness or welfare) that results from acts (Pojman 276). It is contrasted with altruism, which is the view that one's actions ought to further the interests or good of other people, ideally to the exclusion of one's own interests (Pojman 272). This essay will explain the relation between psychological egoism and ethical egoism. It will examine how someone who believes in psychological egoism explains the apparent instances of altruism. And it will discuss some arguments in favor of universal ethical egoism, and exam Pojman's critque of arguments for and against universal ethical egoism.
Locke proposed a theory about property and labor that stated when an individual adds his own labor, to a good or object, that good becomes his property because it was acquired with his labor (Locke, Chapter V, Section 28). This theory is justified as a natural right. With that said, Locke would not approve of stealing. For example, when a man puts in labor to grow apples, he owns the apples; they are his property. Locke would say it is up to the man, “the owner” of the apples, to decide whether he can sell his apples for something in return such as money. But, if someone were to steal an apple and place nothing in return, Locke would say it is unacceptable to steal a good that was the labor and property of someone else without paying for it. The stolen good would not belong to the thief because they did not put labor into producing it. Thus, there is no justified reason to steal the property that belongs to someone else. Locke and Aristotle’s theories together strengthen the philosophical problem at hand: it is not permissible to steal, even if it is for a good
Summary of John Locke’s view on personal identity The concept of personal identity is a central philosophical component to a debate to which many theorists have contributed their theories to. One of the most prominent theories on personal identities was by John Locke, one of the influential theorist in the 17th century. Locke first begins by making an important distinction between the nature of identity as being relative, rather than absolute.
Michael Sanders, a Professor at Harvard University, gave a lecture titled “Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do? The Moral Side of Murder” to nearly a thousand student’s in attendance. The lecture touched on two contrasting philosophies of morality. The first philosophy of morality discussed in the lecture is called Consequentialism. This is the view that "the consequences of one 's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.” (Consequentialism) This type of moral thinking became known as utilitarianism and was formulated by Jeremy Bentham who basically argues that the most moral thing to do is to bring the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number of people possible.