Morality is fundamentally about duty, the duty each individual has to abide by the natural law John Locke believed in the existence of a "Natural Law" that transcends any man-made law. Simply put all citizens have a right to "life, liberty and property." If the government is violating the people 's natural rights (life, liberty, and property/pursuit of happiness), then the people have a right to overthrow the government. Then there is the social contract. The people must do as the government say, the government does not take away the people 's natural rights, Locke allowed taxation to take place by the consent of the majority rather than requiring unanimous consent.
Philosophers from the ancient times to philosophers of today and the modern society all have voiced their opinions on how a government should be set up and ruled in order to have a just society. Some philosophers say that the government is corrupt and unjust while others argue that the government controls fairly and appropriately. The two main positions that philosophers believe are resources in society should be distributed to obtain common good and live life as long as you do not infringe on others. The laws and rules the United States government currently has in place today often originate from these philosophers ideas and work to maintain a just society. 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.
So therefor, man seeks to leave this state and enter governed human existence. John Locke saw the state of nature as being almost as horrible to that of Hobbes' but he believed that God's law still existed and created morality for humans. In the state of nature, Locke hypothesized that all men had perfect freedom and all were equal. They also, being to the service of their creator God, had a moral obligation to protect all of mankind rather than just the protecting the liberty of oneself. The problem that occurred in Locke's state of nature was one where every man held executive and legislative power and governs for themselves and were able to determine crimes and punishments.
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.
James Madison and John C. Calhoun both came up with very similar solutions to this problem; however, both ideas create new problems with society as their ideas are based on the perfect society, rather than the actual society. John C. Calhoun suggests that since man is naturally a social being with strong individual impulses, then government is necessary to repel violence from abroad and repress violence and disorder from within the republic. Furthermore, a constitution is a necessity in order to ensure the ruler or the majority of the republic cannot oppress the citizens in the republic or abuse power. Calhoun proposes the two principle elements in the construction of the government must include suffrage and a concurrent majority in order to avoid abuse and oppression. 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.
Therefore all sovereigns are in a state of war with each other. If a citizen wishes peace he must defend the commonwealth "otherwise the institution of the commonwealth, which they have not the purpose to preserve was in vain" and he says they are all in the State of War. Hobbes also contributed to modern psychology and laid the foundations of modern sociology by applying mechanistic principles in an attempt to explain human motivation and social organization. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than Locke's theory. Hobbes and Locke both agreed that a social contrast was necessary to prevent anarchy and that certain individual s taking advantage of others natural right.
Marx believes that the social groups in a society exist in order for man to exist and actively produce. Machiavelli strongly believes in the influence of the government to ensure stability in the society of human nature. Such conclusions from these the authors lead to their thoughts regarding human nature and human behavior. Locke and Marx believe that humans have reason and can attain a moral state of being while Machiavelli does not believe that humans can rule and have power, thus must have a ruler in order to achieve order. Ultimately, such formations and separate notions of human nature lead to each of the author’s conclusions.
The power is held by those who are being ruled, and they have equal rights in deciding their political outcomes. Locke explains that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins”, so once the rights of the people are suppressed this injustice begins (Locke 102). Locke also explains that if a government was to act unjust, not with the best interest of the majority, then it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow “tyranny” (Locke 102). The people, who have the power, should always defend their human rights, especially from unlawful rulers. This view of government shifts with Hobbes’ perspective.
. "(encyclopedia of philosophy) According to Locke, human beings are driven by both their emotions and reason; they are both self-interested and naturally social or other interested. Locke similarly begins with equality from which he draws a totally different conclusion that we respect and love others in the same way we love ourselves(chp2:P.262)So, to respect and love others as ourselves there should be equality… So, according to Locke's definition of equality, giving up one's natural rights means equality is no longer truly existent. Though we are all still 'born to the same advantages of nature', and we still 'share the same faculties', we consent to subordinate our personal freedoms and liberties to a common law. By consenting to this authority, we give away the power over our own.