This ethical thread that runs through both these theories bears hints of the golden rule that one should treat others, as he himself would want to be treated. One is left with the idea that no matter what the reason for valuing freedom and autonomy, that there is freedom in living in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.
Is it better to live in the extreme of an ideal or one more tempered? I will seek to answer some of these questions bring us to the conclusion that moderation in both universalism and the balance of power is best at preserving individual liberty and forming the best government. Locke defines liberty in two ways; firstly as liberty in nature where man is free from a superior power and lives only under the laws of nature, secondly as liberty in society where man is under no law or legislative power, except under those to which he has consented (Locke, 22). Locke is stressing that true liberty is the supreme freedom of the individual who must only act in accordance with the laws of nature. The authority and laws of society are only legitimate by consent and can be struck down by the collective will of individuals.
Since we know that the universal principle of morality is derived from a rational being’s will due to the Formula of Autonomy, we can therefore conclude freedom is the basis for the universal principle of morality. In a sense, rational beings are defined by our concept of freedom. As humans, we look at the world through the perspective of humans; what we know about the world is from observations and experiences. Therefore, we cannot know what the world is truly like. This may sound disheartening, and Kant admits that freedom is merely a concept we apply to ourselves as rational beings, and thus is something we can never be sure about.
Free will, is having the ability to act based on our own desires and choosing which desires we would like to act on. In the philosophical field of Metaphysics this definition is the most universal way we discuss free will. When we think of the phrase free will, we think of the choices we make that impact our lives. Are our decisions really our own or are they products of outside forces? Is our destiny predetermined by nature?
He claims that freedom is simply the absence of an external hindrance. De Beauvoir believes that everyone is essentially free to decide how to deal with facticity, and that the critical endeavor in life should be to strive for freedom. Hobbes’ perspective on freedom in society overshadows de Beauvoir’s attempt to describe freedom of the individual due to her controversial claims and absence of solutions to the problems she presents.
We define ourselves by the sum of choices and actions we make. (Sartre, p. 208) Sartre’s argument denies the traditional philosophy of an existing human nature, or an ideal abstract of being that we are all born with. Sartre’s theory articulates the absence of an omniscient creator (Sartre, p. 209). Sartre believes that man creates his nature and finds value though his free choices. Sartre elaborates this through his concept of freedom by establishing that our conscience is separate from the physical world; it is without restriction and therefore must be free.
In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory. When Sartre says, “We are left alone, without excuse. That is what I mean to say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32), he is speaking of man’s autonomous life; which is human independence and freedom to will one’s actions. Because God, according to Sartre, did not create man we are self-creating.
The concept of liberty is important to this very day. Liberty initially means to be fundamentally free within ones society from any types of oppression, either from higher authority or from having different form ideologies that can be political or social. Liberty is a form of power that lets one act on their sets and values. In this paper, concept of liberty will be discussed on behalf of two philosophers, John Locke and Jean- Jacques Rousseau. Although liberty provides one to act as they please, there can be different forms of liberty, which are developed naturally by the state of nature and socially through development of human reasoning; state of nature is based on absolute freedom, while socially liberty is restricted.
Nietzsche’s point can clearly be classified as existentialist, because it talks about how man is after power that he can use with free will to determine his own development. Humans chase power for the sole purpose of using it with free will, and by doing so they construct their own future. The quotation “w... ... middle of paper ... ...e’s reflection about freedom of choice. That every single of us has a will; we ourselves make the choices; and we have to be responsible for every outcome, because at the end it determines who we are. These two philosophers that have different pieces of writing, but both came together with the same definition of existentialism, believing that each of us are unique, and self reliable to make decisions that will make who we are, through acts of our own will.
In other words, the “life, liberty and estate” of one person can be limited only to make effective the equally valid claims of another person to the same right. According to Locke the state of ... ... middle of paper ... ...ture. As Locke himself says: the obligations of the law of nature cease not in society. There is thus a double restraint upon the body politic; it has to respect the natural rights to life liberty and property which people enjoyed in the state of nature and to abide by the law of nature itself. In short, unlike the social contract of Hobbes which gives absolute and unlimited powers to the sovereign ruler, the original contract of Locke gives only limited powers to the community; it is not a bond of slavery but charter of freedom.