The definition of a just society can be described as a society with equality and solidarity where everyone is treated the way they deserve to be treated. The government today has control over the people to avoid chaos but tries their best to best serve its people. People in society deserve to be treated fairly based off their natural rights of being human. The Declaration of Independence states that the consent of the govern is applied to serve its citizens with the best laws and regulations to keep the people in a state of contempt and delectation. Governments are supposed to protect and give the people of a nation the rights and justice they deserve with the consent of the governed.
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. Locke states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i... ... middle of paper ... ...he state of war from occurring in society.
He believed that the people should be the basis of the government and that the power of the government is derived from the people’s feelings towards it. In the social contract, the people can revolt against an ineffective government, and it is the people who decide when a government is not longer acting in the best interests of its people. The only rights that people surrender are those that prevent the enforcement of the law of nature, all other rights remain intact. Since the issue in the state of nature was unintended biases that originated from the lack of reason, Locke suggests the idea of a legislator to act as the supreme power that represents the general good of the commonwealth, and the executive, that is the supreme power by default in the absence of the legislator, but is bound by a constitution. Unbiased judges and courts would then be responsible for punishing the transgressors of the natural law of the people, instead of potentially prejudice citizens.
The first principle is necessary in order to hold the rulers of the republic accountable to the people so that they cannot oppress the people because they are dependent on the people. Calhoun also advises that the people should be educated so that they know their rights and the in... ... middle of paper ... ...ention of abuse and oppression will occur. Calhoun on the other hand rejects the system of checks and balances and instead relies on the people of the society and government to compromise with all of the interests in society so that it is fair to both the majority and minority and neither side if oppressed. In conclusion, while Calhoun and Madison hold similar ideas for the solution of oppression and the abuse of powers by government officials or the majority, Calhoun’s constitutional government provides the better system to protect society because it relies more on a system of compromise which better represents the interests of all people in society. Also, the government is directly affected by the people so that the people can determine who rules them, so it is less likely for one ruler to abuse their power since there power depends on the decisions of the people.
However, in order to comprehend the disparity between political thought, the very primary ideas needed to be described. While the central aim of Rousseau’s writing was to explain how the freedom of the individual can be integrated with the authority of the state. Hobbes illustrated the need for political societies which he calls the Leviathan, with the purpose of the dire and natural state of man to be saved. Although, both agree with the inherent equality of men, Hobbes believes men are intrinsically malicious and must be governed by a superior power. In contrast, Rousseau believes men are born with the potential of goodness but the social systems in place propagate animosity.
...cience?? He believed that conscience should tell a person what to do not just a majority vote. To follow a government blindly ruins people they should only trust what they believe is right. The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation.
The people are in charge of their own governmental system; putting them in charge of their own life. The most important thing about Montesquieu was that he wanted to find a way where the people who knew how to reason were in charge. He wanted to find a way where people were in charge of their own life and weren’t just a puppet to their dictator. He wanted to make sure that because every body could reason that every body has an opportunity to voice their opinion freely. What he ‘enlightened’ in our society is our government.
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected.
2 Ch. 29). He is saying there is a type of personal contract with yourself that is your right to decide what is right and what is wrong. The bottom line is that a good government is essential to rid a state of fear and to regulate the groups that people form in order to survive. There are many similarities between Plato’s The Republic and Hobbes’ Leviathan; however, the main similarity between the two is that both Plato and Hobbes agree that a form of sovereignty is necessary, both of their basic reasons being based on their views of human nature.
He argued that without the arrangement of a successful government human being’s would live in the “state of nature.” Locke and Hobbes also differ because Hobbes feels that the sovereign should be all-powerful and individuals should not rebel against the sovereign. By giving up a few of their freedoms the sovereign can maintain order with the rest of their freedoms. Locke, on the other hand, the government is for the people and if the government fails the people it/they can be overthrown and put in place new officials that will protect citizens