There are several arguments against philosophical anarchism. Most of the arguments are in line with either the theory that consent is not required or of the theory we have already consented. For the sake of being brief, this essay will attempt to refute only the latter of the two. Along with the idea of individual consent is the longstanding, traditional theory of the authority of God. Other arguments follow a less anarchist view and are that of tacit consent and more specifically that of majority consent.
The idea that consent is essential for the legitimacy of political authority can be argued against in many ways. Traditionally, the argument that God gave government authority was valid and in accepting religion we accept this as well. If you rebel against this order, you rebel against God. It was reason enough for most people to stop questioning such authority. In the last few centuries, however, the idea of personal freedom and independence has shifted mainstream thinking to being skeptical of the religious premise of government. Just because you believe in God doesn’t mean that you believe he gives government authority over you. The rising political awareness in our societies is causing many people to wonder how much power our government should really have over us. Even if the argument of political authority by God still cannot be argued against, then what about those who do not believe in God? Are they expected to follow governmental authority just as everyone else when they do not believe a god gave authority to government? How does on reconcile that they do and still try to argue that everyone has consented in this way?
Next, is the argument of tacit consent. Those upholding this argument say that we consent to government through some action such as voting, paying taxes, or even just by living in its territory. It even goes as far to saying that we consent simply by remaining silent. Does this mean that we consent to something when we choose an option that is forced upon us? We have more options than the ones given to us by the government. It’s just that they have the power to punish us if we don’t choose from their palette of choices. The fact that we make a choice does not necessarily make it voluntary. Can one say then that if someone believes they make a choice voluntarily it constitutes consent?
In the world of higher education, we as students who have chosen this profession strive to one day possibly becoming a President of an institution. In the article written by Michael D. Cohen and James G. March, “Leadership in an Organized Anarchy” the authors detail their beliefs that most college presidents face four fundamental ambiguities which strike at the heart of a president’s interpretation of leadership. The four ambiguities are ambiguity of purpose, power, experience, and success. But is Cohen’s and March’s concept true for every president and their institution? To determine this I have decided to compare them to the current leadership of 16th president of the University of North Texas (UNT), Dr. Neal Smatresk.
In each of these instances those supporting government involvement in, and endorsement of religion have justified their assumptions by referencing the words and beliefs of the founding fathers, most notably Thomas Jefferson. They point out that he, like most of the other founders, was a religious man, and that his writings exposed a conviction America was essentially a Christian nation. After all, wasn’t it Jefferson who spoke of inalienable rights bestowed upon man by God in the Declaration of Independence? A more detailed examination of his beliefs, though, reveals exactly the opposite was the case, as Jefferson was actually a champion of s...
The primary purpose of this essay is stated in the title. It is to consider whether certain principles presented in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence and commonly referred to as human rights are supported by the authority of God 's word. A secondary goal is to consider how society might be influenced to establish and maintain laws which agree with God 's moral authority. Yet a third goal is to consider how free exercise of human rights might be impacted by obedience and disobedience to God 's moral authority.
The Collapse of the Autocracy The collapse of the autocracy in February 1917 signified the end
Theocracy is a control with no separation between religion and state. Divine law regulates all aspects of individual relationships (Perry, 206). Under correct circumstances, theocracy could be the most superior form of government. However, in a world filled with sin, this form quickly collapses under man’s control. Only when God truly rules is a theocracy tolerable (Rev. 21:3).
If that is the realm that the government controls, then what authority should the church practice over people? The answer is none over unbelievers (for that is God’s position to judge), but we are to hold those within the church accountable to God’s Word (1 Cor. 5:9-12). After all, will we not one day experience the perfect unity of religion and government in Christ’s perfect Kingdom? Stead aptly sums up what can bring about a true change in a society and a nation as he says “Believers need to be reminded that there can be no healthy or lasting change of social structures without a redemptive change in people, which is why Christ came two thousand years ago.” (52)
When one thinks of Anarchy they will immediately think of destruction and chaos. Of course, one who knows the beliefs of Anarchy will know otherwise. Anarchism is a political philosophy that upholds the belief that no one should be able to coerce anyone and no society should contain a wide variety of groups who coordinate social functions. It is the opportunity to live the life that you decide is best for you. In the eyes of Anarchy, government is corrupt and the people of society should govern themselves. There should not be any rules, laws, or police officers to chastise or enforce anything on any individual. Anyone who knows Greek will know that the term Anarchy means no rulers; so an anarchist society is a society without rulers, not a chaotic society. Anarchy believes in liberty, solidarity, and equality.
The aim of this essay is to prove the reliability of and why Libertarianism is the most coherent of the three views, which refers to the idea of human free will being true, that one is not determined, and therefore, they are morally responsible. In response to the quote on the essay, I am disagreeing with Wolf. This essay will be further strengthened with the help of such authors as C.A. Campell, R. Taylor and R.M. Chisholm. They present similar arguments, which essentially demonstrate that one could have done otherwise and one is the sole author of the volition. I will present the three most common arguments in support of Libertarianism, present an objection against Libertarianism and attempt to rebut it as well as reject one main argument from the other views. As a result, this essay will prove that one is held morally responsibly for any act that was performed or chosen by them, which qualify as a human act.
During the turn from ancient to medieval, there were multiple vital points that pivoted the shifts between the two periods. Starting out with an imperial anarchy, where emperors seem to come as fast as they go, to the romanization of Christianity and the upbringing methods of this in the Roman society. Diocletian’s attempts at reconstructing and renewing the empire and Constantine with the Christianization of the Roman empire were closer to the middle of the shift, while the German tribes turning into the German Kingdoms in the western part of the empire were closer to the end. Finally, Justinian’s reassertion of Roman influence closed out the shift, moving from ancient to medieval times. For the most part, the three main components to all of these events that happened between this shift were the tardy Roman civilization, the new religion of Christianity along with the Germans and the combination of these three.
Throughout Federalist 10, James Madison argues that we must allow people to separate into groups according to their needs and beliefs regarding the political system of our country. These factions will protect interests and create an elevated government comprised of the most knowledgeable and educated men to protect the citizenry. His arguments reflect his status as a wealthy and educated landowner that must protect himself in the face of the common people. I will argue that Madison’s argument is flawed, which he alludes to in his writing, because he neglects to acknowledge that people are self-interested and therefore, morally corrupt. This self-interest will be the downfall of Madison’s government as private interests take root and the will of the people is ignored in all places but elections.
Philosophy can be defined as the highest level of clarity and understanding human thought can aspire to. In some ways, Plato’s Republic can be compared to George Orwell’s book 1984. It may seem strange to compare the two, however they are quite similar. Plato writes from the Western philosophy, while Orwell tells of a totalitarian society where all free thought is banned. However, the two versions of government, one being a utopian government, and the other being horrific, contain certain connections that will be made clear over the course of this paper.
The purpose of this paper is to argue for the idea that even without a God, there can be a basis for morality. The structure of my argument will proceed as follows. I will begin my paper with the background information of the idea that without a God, specifically the Christian God, there is no moral basis. After detailing this false belief, I will go on to explain why it is indeed untrue due to various reasons. I will bring forth the conflicting views of St. Thomas Aquinas and the natural law theory before countering the arguments brought up by them.
“No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entring into any Society, makes him a perfect member of that Society, a Subject of that Government” (Laslett 1988, p.119). Thus, in a Lockean view, the very presence of one on the ‘soil’ shows that s/he has given, more specifically, tacit consent. Yet, Locke fails to give any examples that could illustrate this notion and support it any further. As a result, it is inevitable that many questions arise. For instance, one could not know w...
Skitka, L. J. (2009). Limits on legitimacy: Moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 567-578 inclusive. doi: 1939-1315 (Electronic)
Many of us have wondered about the role of a Deity, in defining our moral code, and this has been a subject of discourse among scholars and philosophers since centuries. Many define morality as the innate ability of the human conscience to draw input for decisions which they believe is present there by itself. While some say that the (belief on the) presence of God gives them strength and inspiration to overcome their inability to follow moral standards (which are already defined) especially when they conflict with their self-interests. Although, some people argue that social stimulus imposes limits to one’s actions even if God does not exist. However, a person is at absolute liberty to perform, whatsoever one wants to in the non-existence of God because one does not regard anything as right or wrong in absence of objective moral principles and does not fear any Divine judgement.