Phones are our generation’s tool to research and socialize. Phones can be our mini portable computer. At Anaheim High School, an issue occurs about cyberbullying. As a result, phones are restricted to be used during school hours. They took the freedom to play games, listen to music, social media while they’re not doing anything. This prevents students from amusing themselves using their phones. Phones are important for students for it is an excellent way to entertain ourselves when we’re bored. Locke and Rousseau would have agreed with them. Locke would have protected their freedom and Rousseau would’ve treated all the students as individuals and not a group. John Locke can help students to bring their privilege back. His philosophy supports the claim that they should have their freedom again. He believes that we, people, are born with life, liberty, and property and the government should protect those rights. “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. From in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”, He stated that having a law means to have more freedom. We don’t create laws to take away …show more content…
He stated that “I may be no better, but at least I’m different”. What he meant is that we are individuals and we all have different thoughts. For instance, I may be as unintelligent as the other students, however, I don’t bully anyone as the others do. In this school, “someone’s fault is everyone’s fault.” They treat all of us students as one, therefore, those that have nothing to do with the school harassment problem in the social media are involved as well. On the other hand, Rousseau’s philosophy contradicts that. If he would change this situation, he would have treated all of the students as individuals and if someone did something wrong, he won’t consider anyone except for that someone who did something
Great Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean –Jacque Rousseau had been deeply concerned about the Social Contract Theories on the people. The main theories include safety, security, equal rights and have an organised society without any foreign interference. The use of non-violence and war against mankind. Society as a whole was the main priority for all these three philosophers. Both John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau had different views when compared to Thomas Hobbes on Society. Each of these men had their own theories on how to protect the rights of human beings. John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau have better ideas than Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that only a true and clean government can rule the people and protect their
The enlightenment era arose in the modern cultural ideology of the 18th century, as ideas among philosophers had a widespread effect among the society. The age of enlightenment, in western society, projected the rejection of traditional Christianity, western philosophy, intellectual advances, scientific, and cultural life, government legitimacy and authority. Upon the enlightenment period multiple philosophers emerged, the individuals arose to leading figures using reason to understand all aspects of human life. The motivations for the enlightenment came primarily from the Englishmen, John Locke. John Locke was a philosophical influence in both political theory and theoretical philosophy, which was embraced among the era of 1789-1914 and
The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.
Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should
John Locke was born on August 29, 1632 the son of a country attorney and. Locke grew up in and during the civil war. In 1652, he entered the Christ Church (Oxford) where he remained as a student and teacher for many years. Locke taught and lectured in Greek, rhetoric, and Moral philosophy. Locke, after reading works of Descartes, developed a strong interest in contemporary philosophical and scientific questions and theories.
and brought to the forefront the question of freedom and necessity. Whereby luxury had been
Two of the most prominent figures in social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke established many of the founding ideals that contemporary Liberalism is based on. While the shared many similar positions, there are some key distinctions to be made between the arguments Hobbes and Locke make in Leviathan and Second Treatise of Civil Government, respectively. In this paper I will argue the differences between how each of them viewed the right of the subjects to revolt from the sovereign.
People can legally claim to know what is wrong. Locke and Anthony Ashley Cooper (later the first Earl of Shaftesbury) led him to become government official, responsible for the collection of trade and colonies, economic writers, opposition political activities Home of the message, and finally a revolutionist, eventually victorious in the glorious revolution of 1688
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are social theorists who are both educated in Oxford University. However, they hold distinctive views on human nature, laws, societies, and government. Locke believes in democracy, which the power and the government are in the hands of people, but Hobbes believes in absolute monarchy, where the power and government are belong to the monarch. In this essay, I will mainly use comparison and contrast, first discuss their different opinions about human nature and laws because they are the building blocks to form the government, and then present their views on the formation and purposes of the government. Moreover, I will explain why Locke’s belief, I think, can form a better and more practical government than
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are widely considered to be the most influential political philosophers of the classical liberal viewpoint, as they both believed that a government should exist, but that it should exist only for the purpose of preventing members of society from harming each other, not from harming themselves, therefore maximizing liberty in society. Although they agreed on the general purpose of government, which would today be considered to be a libertarian viewpoint, one critical issue on which they disagreed was on the nature of rights. In Hobbes’ view, people have no natural or inherent rights, and that in a state of nature, people would have no obligation to respect the rights of others. As a result, Hobbes argues that
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all represent social contract theorists who were influenced by liberalism and the enlightenment respectively. They each offer varying takes and critiques of what exactly is the state of nature and from those discussions of the state of nature, they delve into what the state of government would be if it was born from that same state of nature. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau can each be compared and contrasted with one another based upon their own definition of the state of nature and how that state of nature leads to their own states of government.
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
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.
John Locke (1632-1704) and William Godwin (1756-1836) were both English philosophers. Locke and Godwin discuss their views on the origin, purpose as well as extent of authority of a government in their publications. Locke felt that government originated from a social contract and advocated governments which respected their citizens while Godwin saw any form of government as a form of evil thus he advocated self-government and believed that having no government was the ideal state but in the event of being under a government, minimal authority should be exercised. This essay discusses the difference in their views and I will pay attention to the extent of government authority.
Classical thinkers have established a dominant way of thinking which has allocated power into the hands of scholars, who have predicted the formation of society through notions of enforcing authority in order to create a hierarchy of power through force and narrowing knowledge. This narrowed knowledge derives from the dominant ideas these scholars established in order to narrow the options of how society is constructed. I will be talking about Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. This three individuals were known for having their specific intellectual way of thinking in which how to organize and function the mechanisms of society. Some elements that intertwine regarding these thinkers include the ability of power to be established through a hierarchal society, as well as how to influence individuals how to obtain a certain degree of success. Although they were not sociologist, all three of them had a major impact on the study sociology. Hobbes was a philosopher and he became very popular with his book titled “Leviathan.” The book had the foundation of the Western political philosophy, in which he establishes the state of nature as a form of self-preservation, while Locke pushes for self-prosperity at any cost yet they both advocate for the security of society.