In Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (2009), Michael J. Sandal argues that politics and society require a common moral purpose beyond the assertion of natural rights like life liberty and property or the utilitarian calculus of increasing pleasure and minimizing pain for the greatest number of people. He would move beyond both John Locke and Jeremy Bentham in asserting that "a just society can't be achieved simply by maximizing utility or by securing freedom of choice" (Sandal 261). Justice and morality involve making judgments on a wide variety of issues, including inequality of wealth and incomes, discrimination against women and minorities, CEP pay, government bailouts of banks and public education. Politics should take "moral and spiritual questions seriously" and not only on issues like sexual orientation and abortion, but also "broad economic and civil concerns" (Sandal 262). Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King added this moral dimension to U.S. politics in the 1960s when they criticized the Vietnam War, poverty and racial inequality and "appealed to a sense of community" (Sandal 263). So did Barack Obama in his 2008 campaign, although in practice achieving a politics of the common good in American society has been difficult, given the Lockean, natural rights basis of its 18th Century Constitution.
Sandal would go much further in the direction of using government and the political system to uphold morality and the common good than John Locke, who was mainly
John Locke liked freedom, he thought that freedom was good for the government. “...(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature….” (Doc A) This states that Locke wants freedom but their comes consequences. To have this freedom men needed to create a government with a legislature and an executive. Locke’s main idea was people had rights.
Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on
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.
John Locke believed that citizens should give power to those who govern them but not absolute power. He suggested that the "power must remain with the ruled" (Fiero, 97). His social contract that he proposed was similar to Hobbes but
John Locke was a political theorist and a English Philosopher . His work revolves around the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism and political freedoms.
The political philosopher, John Locke is known best for his ideas that influenced Thomas Jefferson while writing the Declaration of Independence. Locke’s views on government were very respected by our founding fathers, even though they were very different from the government styles of his time.
John Locke argued for individual freedom. If we had individual freedom we would have a strong government. Locke said it was necessary to a good government. Locke wrote “People are naturally free and have the right to maintain their freedom.”(Document A) To keep this freedom people needed to construct a government that has both an executive and a legislature. To Locke a government created by the people was the best government in his futuristic sense of
George Lakoff has a very unique was of looking at moral politics. He attempts to dissect the views of the liberal party and the views of the conservative parties in today’s society. Liberals believe that the government should take action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The liberal party claims the duty of the government is to alleviate social problems and to protect civil liberties and human rights. Also, they believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. The need for the government to solve problems is what the liberal party emphasizes on. On the other hand, Conservatives believe in a system made of personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. A conservative generally believes the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals but to not get in the way of personal freedom. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems on their own. Both sides being so completely opposite raises the question of which of the two views is correct for handling different aspects in society such as taxes, abortion, capital punishment etc? Lakoff’s two models known as the strict father model and the nurturant family model strive to relate the conservative and liberal views to explain how a conservative and liberal would
John Rawls wrote several highly influential articles in the 19950`s and 1960`s, his first book, A Theory of Justice (1971), revitalized the social-contract tradition, using it to articulate and defend a detailed vision of egalitarian liberalism. In Political Liberalism [PL] (1993), he recast the role of political philosophy, accommodating it to the effectively permanent “reasonable pluralism” of religious, philosophical, and other comprehensive doctrines or worldviews that characterize modern societies. He explains how philosophers can characterize public justification and the legitimate, democratic use of collective coercive power while accepting that pluralism. (Richardson)
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
There are two sides of the Liberal Theory of Justice which are represented by John Locke and John Rawls – Locke being on the liberal side while Rawls is more on the equalitarian side. Each agrees that man is an individual with rights given to him because of his mere existence. Even though Rawls, who came later, does build on Locke and their views are quite similar, they still have some disagreements on what these rights mean and how they should be handled.
Niccolo Machiavelli and John Locke are, in simple terms, two vastly different kinds of people. They were separated by nearly two centuries, and lived in two different countries. Despite their contradictions on sovereignty, both Locke and Machiavelli shared a primary concern- the betterment of society.
Political philosopher John Rawls believed that in order for society to function properly, there needs to be a social contract, which defines ‘justice as fairness’. Rawls believed that the social contract be created from an original position in which everyone decides on the rules for society behind a veil of ignorance. In this essay, it will be argued that the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. First, the essay will describe what the veil of ignorance is. Secondly, it will look at what Rawls means by the original position. Thirdly, it will look at why the veil of ignorance is an important feature of the original position. Finally, the essay will present a criticism to the veil of ignorance and the original
John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" has long been revered as a marvel of modern political philosophy. It's most well-known for the two principles of justice outlined by Rawls: (1) that all persons have an equal right to liberty; and (2) that (a) all inequalities in society should be arranged to benefit the least advantages, and (b) that all positions and offices should be open and accessible as outlined by fair equality of opportunity. Rawls' conception of society, as a "co-operative venture for mutual gain", forms the basis for both principles, and he is at all times concerned with creating a stable concept of fair and just society. Rawls' second principle, dealing with distributive justice and equality
By neglecting certain facts about particular societies, communitarian theorists have argued that Rawls' theory of justice provides an inadequate conception of the individual in the original position. Some critics have taken more specific aim and argue that A Theory of Justice privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals while inadequately accounting for communal interests. Michael Sandel in his work Liberalism and the Limits of Justice advances this criticism of Rawls. Sandel contends that by separating a person's ends from her identity, Rawls cannot allow for any ends to be constitutive of an individual and hence communal. Because individuals are not attached to their ends, they cannot but choose the principles of justice based on self-interest.