It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”
Both of statements can stand alone, each could be argued. For starters, it is not only selfish to take more then you ever will be able to use, it is just stupid, and if you make it with your sweat, why shouldn’t it be yours to keep or profit from. The only problem is, that one of these statements is the head of a starving serpent, and the other its delicious tale. It is hard to believe the head could stay alive without devouring the tale. We should start this argument at the head and work our way down.
If John Locke were alive today he would be a lawyer. Not just any lawyer though, a big business lawyer working for a company like Enron. He would try to justify the destruction caused by overly rich, overly powerful people, with statements such as ones that will follow. When first reading Locke you might think, “ Hey, this guy sounds like a lawyer....
The 20th century was a definitive time period for the Black civil rights movement. An era where the status quo was blatant hatred and oppression of African Americans, a time when a black son would watch his father suffer the indignity of being called a “boy” by a young white kid and say nothing in reply but “yes sir”. Where a Black person can be whipped or lynched for anything as little as not getting off the sidewalk when approaching a white person, for looking into their eyes, or worse, “for committing the unpardonable crime of attempting to vote.” In the midst of the racial crises and fight for social equality were Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. who despite their difference in philosophies were “icons of social justice movement both in the United States and around the world” .
In reading the first few paragraphs in the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” Martin Luther King Jr shows commitment to all African Americans. He says, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. In the one sentence King declared that he would fight racial...
Martin Luther King and Malcolm x are both strong representations of two different approaches to a common goal. Martin Luther King Jr. preferred a nonviolence approach to the situation. Whereas, Malcolm X handled racism in a violent approach. However, both man believed African Americans deserved their human rights and equal say. Martin Luther King Jr. believed in an integrated society while Malcolm X wanted African Americans to have their segregated neighborhoods just as good as the whites.
In order to better understand why King and X took the course of action each took, one must take into account a little bit of their background. Martin Luther King jr., was born in Atlanta, Georgia into a middle-class family. The church was his source of leadership development and it helped provide him with moral values. Home and church were the most important influences in the early life of King. In both contexts, he was introduced to the integrationist values of protest, accommodations, self-help and optimism as they were related to the religious themes of justice, love and hope. He was introduced to the value of education as a potent way of helping him assert his self-worth to become a church and community leader and to fight racism in the larger society. “King’s basis for his campaign of nonviolence originated in the highest type of love - love for people who hate you. King preached that the combination of agape (spiritual love) with nonviolent action would elicit change”(Walton 78).
A question that has been rising to the surface lately is “should college athletes be paid a salary?” One cannot get on the internet now a day and not see some kind of college sport headline. The world of college sports has been changed greatly the past decade due to college athletes. These athletes make insurmountable amounts of money and an unbelievable amount of recognition for the universities. The athletes that provide and make a ton of revenue for the colleges also spend a huge amount of their time practicing and staying committed to sports, and have to maintain good grades in school which requires quite a bit of overtime. Because college athletes generate massive amounts of revenue and put in massive amounts of personal time for their individual universities, colleges need to financially compensate players for their contributions. The colleges that these superstars represent are reaping all of the benefits of the accomplishments the athletes have, yet the big named players are making nothing from what they do.
...whole different world from professional sports considering they supply men with a family to help grow character with, supply them with a free education, and create a whole community of people that are loyal and generally remain loyal to one school. This bridge between the two sports could be majorly affected if college athletes were to be paid and would then bring up the issue about paying even high school athletes eventually. It is merely opening a can of worms and has been a tradition for so long that it should remain one for years to come. College athletes might not be receiving a full salary but that is not the point of it and they know what they are getting into when they commit to playing a sport. This long-standing barrier between professional and college athletics should remain how it is for the good of everyone but mostly the athletes and college programs.
In his treatise, Locke addresses the equality of all men. In order to correctly understand political philosophy, one must first understand the State of Nature man is born into, which is a state of perfect freedom. In the State of Nature, man has perfect freedom and is equal to all other men. Man’s freedom allows him to act as he pleases and to use or dispose of his possessions as he sees fit (Locke II.4). The freedom man enjoys is coupled with a state of equality, in which it is understood that all men entitled to the advantages of nature and the use of its resources. In the state of nature, no man has more “power or jurisdiction” (Locke II.4) than any other man. Although natural man is in a state of liberty, Locke takes great care to stress that man is not in a “state of license” (Locke II.6), for man is only free to act within the bounds of the law of nature (Locke II.4). The law of nature, which is reason, claims that because all men are “equal and independent,” and therefore, no man ought to cause harm to another man’s “life, health, liberty, or posses...
John Locke, one of the most influential philosophers of his time, was born on August 29, 1632 in Wrington, a small village in England. His father, also named John, had been a lawyer as well as a military man who once served as a captain in the parliamentary army during the English civil war. Locke’s parents were both very devout Puritans and so to no surprise, Locke himself was raised with heavily Puritan beliefs. Because Locke’s father had many connections to the English government at the time of his growing up, John was given a rare gift at that time, an outstanding education.
In today’s society, one of the big controversies with sports is, should student athletes be be paid a salary? Some people believe that they should be paid and others would completely disagree. Even though they technically are being paid, they really are not. The only type of way the athletes would be paid is through financial aid or if they have a job. Only their education is being paid by the school. Although some people believe that they should be paid, it would not be a good idea at all. So college athletes should not be paid at all because they are basically being paid to study and play a sport.
In contrast, Dr. King believed in the change through nonviolent methods, influenced by Gandhi. He also showed his readiness to work with whites toward social justice. However, X and Dr. King, with their two different ideologies, wanted to attain the same goal, Afro-Americans’ freedom (Malcolm X).
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very significant during the Civil Rights Movement. Both were excellent speakers and shared one goal but had two different ways of resolving it. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to resolve the issues by using non-violence to create equality amongst all races to accomplish the goal. Malcolm X also wanted to decrease discrimination and get of segregation but by using another tactic to successfully accomplish the similar goal. The backgrounds of both men were one of the main driven forces behind the ways they executed their plans to rise above the various mistreatments. Martin Luther King Jr. was a more pronounced orator, a more refined leader, and overall saw the larger picture than Malcolm X.
In a state of nature, each man, as the possessor of reason and free will, is cognitively independent and equal, and so, by implication, politically independent and equal (Braman 07). Locke knew that men were there own learning tools within themselves. Not only did they learn from there mistakes, which was known for centuries, but, they also grew from one another and took what they needed for there own well mental development (Braman 09) Just like mankind has been doing for as long as anyone can remember, they have been working there owns ways of life out for themselves and to learn from one another and not from someone or something telling you how you should be living.
“¬¬” A revolution is the replacement of a government by a different one. The idea of revolution has been around since the first kingdoms were found. However, the idea was not as developed until the enlightenment. John Locke, one of the greatest philosophers of all time came up with the idea that if a government does not function properly, people can rebel and form a new government.
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
John Locke was born in 1632. He earned his bachelor’s Degree in 1656 and a master's degree in 1658. In 1690 Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding appeared. From this came Tabula rasa. This then laid the foundation for environmentalism. Locke was an English philosopher who was regarded as one of the “most influential of enlightenment thinkers” and “important to social contract social” (Wikipedia). Locke died in 1704 never being married or having children. His theories are a part of what we practice today.