Although they may not be aware of it, complex philosophic principles influence the simple actions of the mass’s everyday lives. In fact, long lasting and well defined contentions of basic philosophy concerning the actions of human beings has not only affected individuals, but also entire countries. Some of the greatest nations on Earth have been formed around key thoughts and opinions of several great philosophers. Primarily amongst these, however, or John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom wrote on “The State of Nature”, or the state of absolute freedom. While Locke and Hobbes had vastly different opinions on the natural state of a human being, no matter who you are your life is somehow affected by their philosophic writings. As previously stated, nations often base themselves and thusly their common laws off the chosen philosophy of the country. For instance, in the United States of America, police officers carry guns. In Great Britain, however, officers are banned from carrying extremely harmful weapons such as firearms and instead carry the classic truncheon. To the average citizen of each of these countries, the policy that their law enforcement adheres to makes perfect and logical sense, while the opposite country’s policy seems to be either dangerous and overly violent or as overly merciful. However, the reason as to why these two sibling nations differ so greatly comes down to one simple thing: the gun policy imposed on American officers are different from those used in Britain because of conflicting common philosophic beliefs found in both of the countries, where America takes on a naturalistic, believing that humans are inherently evil, viewpoint and Britain sports a rather rationalistic, where in which hum... ... middle of paper ... ...ere is no need to use such extreme non-reversible and almost brutal violence on individuals which they believe can return to society. These two differing philosophic principles are the primary reason as to why the two countries differ. Whether the creators of these two countries intended for the principles of the 15th century philosophers to shape their respective nations or not, it is an undeniable fact that they obviously did and that Locke and Hobbes became two of the most influential philosophers in this way. Despite the contrasting opinions, however, it is clear to see that the philosophies on the State of Nature play an important role in forming the opinions of a country’s citizens by directly affecting their law. Be it gun laws or general culture and way of life, the theories of Naturalism and Rationalism are undeniably the basis of any nation.
Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.
USA has divided into two separated nations because of gun ownership. This issue has been questioned in terms of people’s freedom to buy guns and an indiscriminate use of them. In addition, Americans have claimed that they’ve got strong reasons, which allow them be armed as a matter of civic duty. For ...
Both Aristotle and Hobbes delve into the intricacies of human nature and its components of what it constitutes, subsequently fleshing out the condition of man and their respective natures. Extending on their ideas of the human nature, they then use these views to elaborately develop the role of politics, encompassing theories on influencing and organizing human beings on an individual and civic level. Hobbes’ and Aristotle’s views on human nature are almost at extreme ends of a spectrum, differing to a considerable extent, and with that, the politics expounded from it. This comparison gives light to complications consistent in Hobbes’ political theories, of how his ideal authoritarian regime may be inconclusive in practical application. This essay will discuss the human nature as outlined by both philosophers’ and the politics arisen from it.
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.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
Hobbes and Locke argued that people mainly formed a state for different reasons according to their ideology. Hobbes mentioned that humans only formed a state for their mere self interest to protect themselves from the wrath of others. In contrast Locke had a more positive perspective that individuals believed it was moral to form a state to protect their natural rights and would not be deprived from their rights. In Leviathan, Hobbes asserts, "Conferre all of their power and strength upon one Man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all of their Wills, by plurality of voices," (Locke, 95). Comparing the statement of Hobbes with Locke is the following, “It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people," (Locke, 70). Both theories on the sovereign power relates to the human nature. For example Hobbes’s believes that humans need a strong authority to protect citizens from each other and outside forces, which is why the sovereign has absolute power. Critiquing Locke 's perspective he mentions that the people in state of nature live in peace and tranquility amongst each other setting moral limits without having a sovereign (central
In many ways Hobbes and Locke’s conclusions on man and society create a polarizing argument when held in comparison to each other. For instance the two make wildly conflicting assertions concerning mankind’s capacity to foster and achieve organized society. Hobbes asserts humans cannot be trusted to govern themselves lest they fall into war and chaos; Locke, on the other hand concludes almost the exact opposite. Despite the polarity in each man’s train of thought, both philosophies share a common ancestor: a state defined by total equality where no human is superior or holds dominance over another. Although this is the base of both theories, it is the only similarity between the two. This commonality can be illustrated when tracing each argument deductively from their conclusions, the comparison reveals that the heaviest and most base opposition in each mans philosophy is his assertions regarding the nature of human beings.
In order to examine either philosopher’s views on property and its origins, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of human development, as it were, and discuss their different conceptions of the state of nature. As opposed to Hobbes whose vision of the state of nature was a state of war, Locke’s state of nature is a time of peace and stability. “We must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom…A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” (Locke, Second Tre...
In Locke’s state of nature, men exist in a “state of perfect freedom” over their actions, possessions, and persons, within the law of nature (Locke 269). They do not depend on other men for anything. This complete intellectual and physical freedom is a natural state, but is not a perfect state. Locke acknowledges that full freedom, without a government to moderate it, doe...
America is changing, the country that once was based on religious ideas is slowly becoming history, to the point that we can lose all traces of the America that was founded in 1776. As the days continue there is a continuous battle over the public possessing guns. A large portion believes and supports laws preventing civilians from owning military style rifles. With the growing support, these supports are trying to get guns all together out of the hands of people. With the recent mass shootings, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado, and Virginia Tech, causing big support of these laws, many people fear that losing guns to the government will allow for criminals to do anything they want because civilians wont have a way to protect themselves. If guns are removed, the crime will increase, and there is more potential for foreign attacks to be held on U.S. soil.
Gun control can also be examined with the third perspective in sociology, the conflict theory. Since most of society’s problems are caused by the constant competition of two groups, many can be examined using this micro-level analysis. Even if gun control is enforced people will still continue to rebel and resent the law. With the conflict theory, individuals will always go against authority no matter what the case may be.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.
Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.
John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.