Aristotle Vs Locke

The word Social Contract theory was first used by Thomas Hobbes to define royal authority. However John Locke who wrote the two treaties on government” in the 1680’s reinforce the meaning of a new social contract theory. In his version of social contract, he stated “men surrendered a part of their right to govern them selves in order to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law”(Foner, 149). In his argument, natural right such as life, liberty and proper play a huge role. According to Locke, Government or political system is form by equal individuals (mainly men of a household). Although men surrendered part of their right to govern to enjoy the benefits of the rule of law, they do retain the natural right of protecting of liberty, life and property against any local or foreign enemies. According to Locke and the

John Locke was perhaps one of the most influential political philosophers of the modern period. In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke discusses the move from a state of nature and perfect freedom to a then governed society in which authority is given to a legislative and executive power. His major ideas included liberalism and capitalism, state of nature, state of war and the desire to protect one’s property.

Throughout history, there have been many prolific philosophers and writers who have created works and writings that have advanced the way society thinks about their lives and what exactly they want from the world. What they presented ranged from something as simple as new ideas and theories, or as large as a revolution. There are some, although barring a few differences, that tried to present similar ideas and writings to cause a change in processes and a different mindset for the people. Take the theories from John Locke’s The Social Contract and Thomas Paine’s radical beliefs from The Age of Reason. Both of these men attempted to introduce a change in the way society thought and lived through both their own opinions and the idea that all people are entitled certain rights upon birth. The two had similar reasoning and ideals when they were describing their vision of an ideal society. Although the two presented their beliefs for different reasons, both John Locke and Thomas Paine’s writings resulted in a major impact on the minds of the people, as well as changes in society, for years to come.

In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle view of the 4 kinds of people are accurate. These 4 kinds of people are the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed. First, I will set out Aristotle’s argument about a strong-willed person who struggles to overcome desires, and does it make them morally wrong. Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they are the virtuous, strong-willed, weak-willed, and the vicious persons and his arguments concerning them. Finally, I will set out my own position to support Aristotle’s view.

John Locke and Edmund Burke were two champions for the theory of change in the world of political philosophy during the seventeenth century. Locke is largely known for pushing liberalism in influencing the American and French political revolution period while Burk is known for taking a more placid approach to promoting modern conservatism. Set out in different time period, both thinkers focus on the purpose of the government, its structure and functions, laws of nature and the characteristics of man in and out of nature as a state. It is quite common to misunderstand and misinterpret the aspect of the revolutionary fight as a collective calling for everyone. Not everyone was an intransigent fighter for the revolution, a fact that has often clouded our current notions and ideals in identifying the true assessment of the mind state of the political period in late 18th century. Understanding this, it becomes easier to vision the element of division in terms of personal perspective and mindset, with various powers of thoughts colliding with each other. As such, Locke and Burke represent a political contentious period where these two philosophers who were not necessarily on polar opposites stand strong in championing their beliefs and remain worth contenders.

He seems to describe the right to ownership as something that can be earned by making improvements or purposing using hard work. Locke also places stipulations upon ownership such as not taking more than one needs or wasting. One of those examples were homestead. Locke thought by improving the quality of land, over time, the land became the property of the person who invested the labor. With the parameters, it would mean man can only take enough land to provide the harvest for himself and his family, who will work the land. A larger plot that wouldn’t be worked regularly or that would produce too much food would be wrong. Locke finds labor, or work, the value that man possesses. Anything that man put forth labor into, then in turn, belonged to that man.

Locke argues that since money has little value besides for the value that men give it, men, by accepting the use of money, have “agreed to a disproportionate and unequal passion of the earth, they have, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of” (698). Locke places high value on property. He says that human beings are born with a natural right to preserve their own property, that is, their life, liberty, and estate. He also says that the preservation of property is the number one reason people enter into a civil society. A civil society is there to protect the natural rights of humans, which is the preservation of their private property (707).

After carefully studying both writers works, it is very difficult to argue that one type of government is ideal or more preferable than the other, due to the fact that both Aristotle and Locke provide very compelling arguments as to why their style of government is better. Although both styles of government work for the betterment of the citizens of the city-state, the means by which they do so are how Locke and Aristotle differ in their opinions. Aristotle believes that as long as the citizens of the city-state are able to carry out a life of virtue, then the process by which the government achieves its goals is irrelevant. This concept that Aristotle suggests is very compelling to agree with because living a life of virtue is something that the majority of humans want, they want to live their lives happily, and Aristotle’s ideal government would allow humans to do that. The problem with Aristotle’s government is that it has no checks and balances. Aristotle is flawed in that he believes that all humans desire a life where they are able to debate and discuss issues like the meaning of justice, when in reality humans have other ambitions in life. His government system would have free reign to run the city-state however it deemed best, regardless of how the citizens felt, as long as it provided them the security to live

In the Declaration of Independence however, "property" is replaced with "pursuit of happiness". Locke came up with the idea of natural rights. He had famous treaties as in Two Treatises of Government (1690), a representative government that would best fit all individuals in the nation Locke was the one to championed it. Also in the Declaration of Independence The Founding Fathers added that(Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness ) which was the idea Locke

Locke begins his explanation of private property by establishing how individuals come to possess property separate from the common resources of mankind. The defining feature of a piece of private property is labor, as the individual who performs the “labour that removes [the good] out of that common state nature left it in” makes the property his own (V. 30). According to Locke, the common resources of nature are open to all mankind, but a good becomes an individual’s own when a person performs some sort of labor on it. This stems from his idea that industry is an extension of self-ownership – people have natural rights of their own being, and extending these personal rights through work is how people come to own other things. Labor is what establishes ownership of a good, and as long as the amount of property taken is within a reasonable and modest amount, people are free to take what resources they must from the Earth. Although Locke argues in favor of the possession of private property, he emphasizes the point that it is “dishonest” for a man “to hoard up more than he could make use of” (V. 46). When people take property in excess, perishable

   In the tomes of history, many philosophers have outlined their visions of a perfect society.  Until recently however, few have ventured into the waters of religious tolerance.  One such philosopher was John Locke.  Writing in the late 17th century, Locke advocated a complete separation between church and state.  He argued for an unprecedented tolerance of people of all faiths.   Although Locke's views became widely popular throughout Europe and the Americas, they did not meet with unanimous approval.  Many earlier philosophers disagreed with Locke.  Two such philosophers were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas.  Aquinas disagreed in three key respects:  Compulsion, toleration, and authority.  Aristotle, on

Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

Aristotle and St. Augustine both wrote philosophical works in order to teach us something that they have learned, in hopes that we will apply it to our own lives. However, Augustine uses a type of autobiographical style in addition to treatise in his works, while Aristotle only uses the treatise style in his works.What were they both thinking when they were writing these famous works? Did they use their respective styles to achieve a goal?

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are great political philosophers that have many similar insights about society and its political form. However, when closely examining the writings of these thinkers, one can easily discover many subtle differences among them. The two philosophers base their theories on different assumptions, which subsequently lead to dissimilar ideas about the origin of society and the constitution of governments. As a result, their views of the development of society greatly dissent from each other. Locke's and Rousseau's different versions in the development of society cause them to reach disparate conclusions concerning the legislative power, social unit, and revolution rights of the society. Locke believes that