Locke Vs Kant

447 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Civil Rights movement civil disobedience

I also agree with Locke’s argument that if the contract has been violated by the ruler, then it is the role of the citizens to take up arms against that government. Kant emphasizes the importance of duty and argues that, “even if the power of the state or its agent, the head of the state, has violated the original contract […] the subject is still not entitled to offer counter resistance”(81). In What is Enlightenment ?, however, Kant explains that, “the duty of all men [is] to think for themselves”(55). Kant acknowledges the importance of questioning and forming judgements about the government, but condemns turning thoughts into actions. Kant explicitly states that, “it would be permissible to pass general and public judgements upon them, …show more content…

that, it is more likely that an entire society enlightening itself, than it is for individual to achieve enlightenment. In Perpetual Peace, Kant professes that, “reason, which is pragmatically capable of applying the ideas of right according to this principle, constantly increases with the continuous progress of culture”(124). According to Kant, society is slowly progressing, so one can infer that our capacity for reason is also slowly improving and enlightening society as a whole. This progress cannot happen, however, if citizens are bound by duty and are forbidden from taking action and rebelling against their corrupt government. In agreement with Locke, it is citizen's’ duty to help progress society and obey their rulers, but if those rulers are inhibiting their citizens from achieving enlightenment, then I would disagree with Kant and encourage those citizens to take action and attempt to reform their government. A compact that has its citizens worse off than if they were in the state of nature should be questioned and changed, even if it means entering into a state of nature. If Kant’s belief that, “the human race will [...] henceforth progressively improve without any more total reversals” (184), then society will continue on its path towards enlightenment, despite

Show More
Related

  • Locke vs. rousseau

    574 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1242 Words  | 3 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.

    Read More

  • John Locke's Second Treatise, Of Civil Government

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast Locke And Napoleon

    1289 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.

    Read More

  • Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Thoreau

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.

    Read More

  • Nietzsche Vs Kant

    1400 Words  | 3 Pages

    Through the course of history logic, reason and rules have changed drastically as well as what does it mean to be human. This question has stumped philosophers for centuries, great minds like Rousseau, Nietzsche, Kant, Hobbes, St. Augustine, and Sartre. Each philosopher has struggled with the true meaning of what it means to be human. They study the human since its birth all the way to its last days, the only they these philosophers notice with humans is maturity as they age. Maturity is what allows us to become people with character. As these philosophers notice the concept of maturity, their ideas start to splitter off here is where the issue takes place. The issue that rises is how should one live.

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • John Locke

    2446 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), was first criticized by the philosopher and theologian, John Norris of Bemerton, in his "Cursory Reflections upon a Book Call'd, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding," and appended to his Christian Blessedness or Discourses upon the Beatitudes (1690). Norris's criticisms of Locke prompted three replies, which were only posthumously published. Locke has been viewed, historically, as the winner of this debate; however, new evidence has emerged which suggests that Norris's argument against the foundation of knowledge in sense-perception that the Essay advocated was a valid and worthy critique, which Locke did, in fact, take rather seriously. Charlotte Johnston's "Locke's Examination of Malebranche and John Norris" (1958), has been widely accepted as conclusively showing that Locke's replies were not philosophical, but rather personal in origin; her essay, however, overlooks critical facts that undermine her subjective analysis of Locke's stance in relation to Norris's criticisms of the Essay. This paper provides those facts, revealing the philosophical—not personal—impetus for Locke's replies.

    Read More

  • Hobbes Vs Kant

    728 Words  | 2 Pages

    As time passes ideology and government change, for the better or worse. Kant, Marx, and Hobbes all lived in a different world with their own set of set of difficulties and opinions. I believe none of them are truly correct in their ideas of humanity and government, and by understand their beliefs in relation to the time period we can better understand all of their works while at the same time formulate our own perspective on the issue.

    Read More

  • Locke And Rousseau: Breaking The State Of Law In The Civil Society

    725 Words  | 2 Pages

    In order for laws to be enacted, they must be known by the constituents. Laws are created, enacted, and enforced to preserve civil society. For Locke and Rousseau these laws are made by the people who will have to abide by them. Considering that these laws were agreed by the majority, it is expect that they will follow said laws. Those who break the law in civil society are punished to the full extent of the law by an impartial judge. The difference between breaking the law in civil society and the state of nature is that justice in the civil society is meant to deter lawlessness with punishments proportionate to the crime. In the state of nature/ war it is likely that the punishment will not be proportionate to the crime.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    In Locke’s Treatise, the social contract binds citizens to a government which is responsible to its citizenry. If the government fails to represent the interest of its citizens, its citizens have the right and obligation to overthrow it. By contrast, Hobbes’ Leviathan refers to people as subject rather than as citizens, indicating an absence of a reciprocal relationship between the ruler and the ruled. Absolute arbitrary government invests all rights in the sovereign.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant Satire

    1155 Words  | 3 Pages

    People are given the ability to question things as long as nothing is done. Kant states, “argue as much as you please, but obey!” This gives people the illusion of choice without any actual reform. Making individuals philosophize about their problems essentially distracts them from taking action. Kant later states, “A lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity.” He insinuates that less freedom in reality encourages freedom theoretically. What is the point in having freedom if it does not do anything? Kant answers that reform can be achieved “by uniting the voices of many (but not necessarily all) scholars.” This makes freedom an abstract concept that has the potential to be claimed, but is nearly impossible to achieve. Kant claims that a scholar, or an enlightened person, can only become so through individual thought; thus, a group of individuals must come to the same conclusion separately to achieve reform. Having too many scholars results in too many ideas; similarly, too few scholars makes even a unanimous idea weak. This virtual inaccessibility of freedom furthers the Enlightenment philosophy’s unjust agenda of encouraging the inaction of the masses. Kant also displays the cons of enlightenment philosophy in his account of the races. He says, “this fellow was quite black from head to foot, a clear proof that what he said was

    Read More

  • Compare Locke, Berkeley And Kant's View Of Reality Independently Of Our Mind

    917 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this essay, I will be exploring the ideas of Locke, Berkeley and Kant as they relate to the question of whether we see reality independently of our minds.

    Read More

  • Liberty And Equality's Impact On The French Revolution

    605 Words  | 2 Pages

    I believed that men are free by nature and people have rights in their life, liberty, and property, which should allow them to have the similar rights in a legitimate political government. Not only that, but governments lacking the protection of peoples’ rights must be neglected and superseded. Yet, I cannot ignore the rights of revolution. I gave credence to the principle of majority rule along the separation of legislative and executive powers in a government. In addition to the government dominancy, my ideology states that compulsion should be precluded from occurring as people should have their own choice of religion and not reflect on what the ruler’s beliefs are. I see the same thing when I contemplate churches as they must not pressurize their members. Aside from this, contrary to pre-existing concepts, I concluded that we are born without built in mental content, meaning knowledge is retrieved through sensory experience. To summarize, given my beliefs, theories, or arguments that I put forward in political philosophy, you may ponder, “wherefore did John Locke form such beliefs? Pursuing this further, my convictions gave importance to people’s rights as I comprehended that we are capable of reasoning and governing ourselves, and any government that mistreats or denies our natural rights must be overlooked through revolutionary ideas put forward to them as well as the social contract, which forms relations between peoples’ natural and legal

    Read More

More about Locke Vs Kant

Open Document