When thinking about the government, people frequently find themselves asking why the government is needed. However, before we can answer that question, we must think about what it would be like to not have a government. The government helps establish the rules and laws for society. Without this, there would be disorder and there would be absolute chaos. The measure of safety in our daily lives would be thrown out of the window and people would do things without thinking twice about them. Humans want power, to lead or to take responsibility as nature or they want to follow someone they believe is an authority figure. Also, the fact we are so attached to this idea of having a government too would make people want to take them places, which of …show more content…
However, they had different arguments on human nature and the nature of the political society. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) believed in a pessimistic view when it came to human nature and believed it was a “state of war” because men came together as they could not live without government in the community. Without government, society would be characterised by violence and warfare due to the antisocial dimension of men’s characters which would dominate. According to Hobbes, to control all the members of society is absolution even if the system is not based on democratic principles. He thought chaos and anarchy was due to the loss of absolute power in society. However, whilst Hobbes thought this, Rousseau thought the other, as he had an optimistic view of human nature and thought decision making should involve all members of society. Rousseau (1712-1778) thought the system of government should be based on democratic principles and that every member of society should take part in decision making. Though he does highlight freedom of the members within society, there are limitations of freedom to ensure security. Everybody has to accept collective decisions in a liberal democracy even if some members do not agree with …show more content…
Ideology is important when discussing the state’s role, but it is not an informed viewpoint. In Britain, our government has policies such as education and public services which in turn, helps people reach their goals in life. It also, has a benefit system for the sick and unemployed. If, we did not have this type of government there would be an increase in crime, sickness and unemployment. The welfare state is a state that protects the well-being and health of all its members. The welfare state does this by helping people reach their full potential by giving them free education from the ages of four to eighteen and in Scotland, students are given grants for further education. By being provided with education this allows people to fulfil their potential and be able to get a career they wish to do, but in result, this creates a healthier and larger workforce which benefits the society. Not only does the welfare state provide that, but it also provides benefits for the unemployed whereas the minimal state only provides minimal laws which would only provide for the security of the land. The only legitimate function for the minimal state is the protection of individuals from fraud, assault, breach of contract and theft. The governmental institutions function is the courts, military and police. The government functions are rhe legislatures, the judiciary, various emergency
I think government is important, but does not help preserve human society. History has gone throughout time and earlier generations have not had the knowledge and technology that we have today but we have evolved to what we are now without government. I think government is just there to keep everyone in line with laws and our rights and to control terrorism and making big decisions.
We often wonder about the importance of government. Is it necessary? Does it really benefit society? The answer is yes. Many countries have diverse forms of government such as totalitarian, monarchy, theocracy, and much more. The United States of America specifically runs a democratic type of government. A democratic government gives power to the people. Citizens over the age of eighteen are allowed to elect leaders based on their individual opinions through voting rights. The main purpose of the American government is, to protect people’s inalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness as our Founding Fathers intended.
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.
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. 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.
Minority right was not well discussed in the early liberalism works. However, it becomes more important when more states had a mix of people of different identities. This paper will first investigate how Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau’s goal to unify people harms the minority. Then, it will compare Burke’s conservatism with their liberalism, and show how Burke’s theory, by embracing the traditions, leaves room for the minority rights. Finally, this paper will discuss how Marx transforms the minority question into the political emancipation of minority, and extends it to the ultimate human emancipation. It will also evaluate the practicability of such ultimate goal.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau have different, even opposing, views on the topic of the natural state of man. These views play a major role in their beliefs and reasoning for why man needs society and government. These beliefs can be easily summarized with Hobbes believing in an inherent selfishness and competition in man, whereas Rousseau’s views on things are far more positive, believing that man is far happier in his natural state, and the root of his corruption is the result of his entrance into society. Rousseau’s theory is based on a state prior to the formation of society and any form of government. Thomas Hobbes, the founding father of political philosophy and who was in great opposition to the natural state of man, emphasizes that all people are selfish and evil; the lack of governmental structure is what results in a state of chaos, only to be resolved by an authority figure.
Through time people have always wondered what it is that makes us who we are. It has been our human nature that has kept us intrigued with ourselves, and our relationships with others. With this curiosity came various interpretations as to our human nature, each changing the way we see the societal world we live in. With each interpretation came a new understanding of people and the relationship they hold with each other. Human nature has been one of the most studied elements of the world we live in. From our nature came the interest of how we as humans interact with each other, through the development of our nature some have served and others had ruled. Three philosophers that have focused their political ideas around human nature have given a deeper meaning to their study of politics through the understanding of human nature. Each one of them had a distinctive interpretation of what human nature was and how it impacted the politics of the specific society that they envisioned. It is hard to say that one of them holds the answers to the true essence of human nature but one can say that each of them has given an interesting and strong piece of the puzzle that has linked human nature to politics. The three philosophers in question are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I will be referring to them by their last name for simplicity. Starting with the philosophical views of each man we will see how they differ. It will be clear that each man’s idea comes from a very different perspective on human nature.
He started out on with philosophy of political science while on his trips and visits to other countries outside of England to listen to other scientists and learn different forms of government. While studying, Thomas Hobbes wondered about why people were allowing themselves to be ruled and what would a great form of government for England. He reasoned that people were naturally wicked and shouldn’t be trusted to govern themselves because they were selfish creatures and would do anything to better their position and social status. These people, when left alone will go back to their evil impulses to get a better advantage over others. So Thomas Hobbes concluded that the best form of government would an absolute monarchy, which is a government
Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
During the sixteen hundreds, the French philosopher René Descartes laid the foundations for the beginnings of Cartesian Dualism. In contrast, the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes argued against dualism in favor of materialism. Recently, Cartesian Dualism, and dualism in general has fallen out of favor as materialism arose as a more plausible and explanatory theory regarding the interrelationships between body and mind. The translation Descartes’ writing in the Meditations is far more cryptic than Hobbes’ writing in the Leviathan. Making it far easier to see Hobbes’ claims. Hobbes provides a reasonable explanation against dualism in his objections to Descartes, and in his Leviathan, provides background upon his reasoning in those objections. Dualism may be less popular than materialism in current philosophy, but it may simply be because dualism has more or less reached some sort of block in regards to its further development, and not anything to do with the writings of Descartes or Hobbes. Descartes and Hobbes may have influenced many of the earlier bickering between philosophers of mind upon the subject of mind-body interaction, as Hobbes was likely the first objector to Descartes’ dualism.
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.
Particularly influenced by specific events taking place during their lifetime, each one of them perceived human nature differently and therefore had variant opinions about the role of government under the Social Contract. For instance, Thomas Hobbes saw humans exclusively as self-interested creatures. He believed that everything we do is frivolously premeditated and rationalized in order to accomplish our objectives and satisfy as many of our desires as possible. From these pessimistic views of human nature, Hobbes goes on to suggest why we would be willing to submit ourselves to political authority. According to Hobbes’ hypothesis, life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short."
This indicates that the community will only be peaceful when the people are in the state of nature. However, this questions why a government is created if the result will only cause the government to be corrupt. He also believes that there are interest groups that will try to influence the government into supporting what they believe in. Rousseau sees that the people will only be involved in the government is they choose to participate in the voting. He also says that when the people are together as a collective, they work and are viewed differently compared to when they are as individuals. Although Rousseau does understand both Hobbes and Locke’s theories, it makes the audience wonder why he didn’t fully support the theory of leaving people in the state of nature. By doing so, it would allow the people to continue having individual freedom without causing a state of
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.