In such a condition, people are able to pursue their own interests (Locke 2005, 3). Due to the restrictions imposed by the Law of Nature, which focuses on the preservation of humanity as well as their independence and equality, it is a peaceful place. No one is ranked above another because each person is God’s creation. Since no one has the right to take away what God produced and therefore owns, killing another human being is unacceptable (Locke 2005, 4). Locke did not think humans are good or evil because he viewed the human mind as a tabula rasa, meaning it is blank at birth and completely shaped by its environment.
Interestingly, Ben Franklin, who was a chief participant in the battle for independence, “had a lot to lose by it.” (Wright 1986, page 204). He had a residence in London and was influential in England. However, his love of liberty and his desire to promote the well being of Pennsylvania pushed him toward independence for the colonies. Franklin had to wrestle with his conscience over his own private affairs. Also, since he was well respected in England, he was "the Establishment man-even if he felt now a deep unease on the basic question: What was the authority of Parliament over the American colonies?"
The power of reasoning allows limitless inquiry into the nature of all things. Adam Smith an “enlightened” thinker utilizes reasoning to examine the wealth of nations, but in acting on this reasoning is he forcing his own sentiments into his argument, or is the reasoning creating the sentiments? Smith offers an exposition for his vision of a laissez faire economy, that is, capitalism in the modern sense. In a wider scope, Smith's account reveals his views on the nature of the human condition, and not a single theme is surveyed without an observation being made upon human tendencies and decisions. Arguably, these observations are shaped by his own sentiments.
Because God, according to Sartre, did not create man we are self-creating. Through human intelligence comes essence, the intrinsic nature or indispensible quality of something, but essence only comes after human existence. Creating ones own essence allows man to be free because we create what we are, rather then our identities being given to us. The only guidance man gets is from themselves because man is left alone in the universe, which in-turn makes man responsible. Man has no one telling him what to do, there may be laws but they are man made and because they man made no one has true control over man.
The State of Nature and its Implications for Civilization in Hobbes and Rousseau In his Leviathan Thomas Hobbes expresses a philosophy of civilization which is both practical and just and stems from a clear moral imperative. He begins with the assertion that in the state of nature man is condemned to live a life “solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short.” It is in the interest of every man to rise above this “state of nature” and to give up certain rights so that the violent nature of the human animal can be subdued. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s vision of the state of nature parallels that of Hobbes but for its more optimistic tone: “I assume that men reach a point where the obstacles to their preservation in a state of nature prove greater than the strength that each man has to preserve himself in that state.” In general, Rousseau’s words prove reasonably less severe than Hobbes’s. According to Hobbes the bestial rights that a man is forced to give up must also be given up by every other man if civilization is to quell the state of nature. This surrendering of rights then forms covenant of peace which mankind has agreed upon collectively to rise above the state of nature.
Man could not evolve to any other state, because he was made in the ultimate state. He was made in the image and likeness of the Father so there was no need for evolution; hence, there was no sign of evolution from the beginning. Since sin came into the world, man has been deceived into thinking there is evolution. We are not talking about the theory of evolution that says man started from an amoeba or as an ape and eventually began to walk upright; not that evolution, but evolution in the sense of development. There are developments in the earth and therefore it can be considered as a form of evolution, but truly would it be classified as evolving, because man has not gotten better?
According to Locke, these rights imply the duty to survive, reproduce, and to preserve oneself. I believe Locke’s view on property is useful for creating and maintaining a peaceful society because people have these natural duties in a state of nature, which (according to Locke) brings peace because equality is already present. However, difficulty arises in understanding what Locke means by ‘labor’, and this further complicates Locke’s views of property. According to David P. Ellerman, “Locke interprets ‘one’s labor’ to mean the labor that one owns, not the labor that one performs.” Therefore, Locke states that no quantity or quality of labor is necessary for someone to claim something as property; the ability to do such labor to something makes it one’s property. This analysis of his meaning of the word ‘labor’ aids to the understanding of his views of property and clarifies it further for this
In this sense, Locke calls these natural rights 'property'. Under this definition, Locke says the main reason people leave the state of nature is the preservation of their property. The se... ... middle of paper ... ...situation that did not exist in the state of nature…" (Rousseau 59). Therefore, Rousseau says that the first man who claimed a piece of land his own could have saved the human race from "crimes, wars, murders, …miseries and horrors" if he would only have realized that the earth belonged to everyone (60). It is ironic that Rousseau even uses an axiom of Locke's in his argument, "where there is no property, there is no injury" (64).
By submitting himself to the power of a sovereign, man would be protected by that same power, thereby gaining his liberty. Rousseau’s version of the state of nature differs greatly. He makes no mention of the constant fear which Hobbes believed would control man’s life in the state of nature, rather he describes the setting as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. Building from this favorable description of the state of nature, why would man want to enter into a social contract of any kind?
This seems to be conflicting with Locke’s theory relating to title of property, particularly, as he states that for man to acquire private property, labour needs to be added to obtain full private ownership of the property and only then will ownership become a private right. Nonetheless, the latter is subject to Locke’s assumption that nobody is made worse off by acquiring private property. Conversely, Locke does not restrict the accumulation of property by introducing the concept of coinage into his theory which subsequently makes the poor dependant on the