As a prelude to Alan Moore and David Lloyd's V for Vendetta, we introduced three political philosophers who theorized society as a particular kind of "agreement": Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau agree humans form societies for some kind of mutual benefit. But because they have different beliefs about human nature, they disagree about the nature of that benefit, and the shape society should take. Hobbes and Rousseau take opposite positions about human nature, leading to opposite views on government, as explained in this short video. In contrast to Hobbes's insistence on an absolute monarchy to protect us from ourselves, Rousseau believes that that no official government is needed, because people can govern themselves according to their own voluntary social contract. John Locke, as explained in this video, took the compromise position that there should be an official government, but only to protect the "natural rights" of life, liberty and property - and any State which violated those limits could be overthrown. Your task is to give your opinion on one or both of these questions (25 points): a.) Whose theory of human nature and government is best, and why? We began to discuss this in class, so you can elaborate on points you started making or reference classmates' ideas. b.) Some philosophers argue that a "contract" is the wrong model for thinking about society, since we are simply born into a social world we did not help create or even agree to join. Instead, they emphasize how any society is defined by power struggles over who gets to make the rules. This tradition includes thinkers like Niccolo Machiavelli and Friedrich Nietzsche (the "God is dead" guy). Do you think there is any truth to this argument? Why or why not?
40 Comments
Biggs
12/7/2016 06:04:34 pm
I'd like to share my thoughts this time because this topic is of great interest to me, both as a citizen of our democracy and as a teacher (which requires me to daily "govern" a classroom).
Reply
Harrison Jones
12/8/2016 06:07:57 pm
a.) Whose theory of human nature and government is best, and why? We began to discuss this in class, so you can elaborate on points you started making or reference classmates' ideas.
Reply
Erin Rooy
12/8/2016 06:12:07 pm
I've spent a lot of time pondering society and the "rules", so to speak, as I'm sure many others have done. If I were to agree with one of the philosophers, I would have to agree with Rousseau and his idea on man. He believes that man is good, but society screwed us up. That point isn't only apparent in the progression of society, but also in one's life. When someone is young they are innocent and pure, but as they grow the pure whiteness of their souls, slowly dim as their interaction with society increases. Man was good, until society plagued them. Also, going off the idea of government and that it should be in place but we should be able to overthrow it. I agree with this whole-heartedly because if there is no possibility of overthrowing it, then we are basically in a dictatorship. In dictatorships, creativity is limited which also limits society. While I agree with Rousseau, I also agree with Machiavelli and Nietzsche on their point that society should not have a contract, but more of a set of rules. We did not chose to be in this society so there shouldn't really be a contract of it. There should be a set of rules that is "normal" to follow; however, there will always be those rebels who go against the "norm". In conclusion, I feel that society should be governed with a set of rules (not too strict, but not too loose allowing crime rates to spike, etc.), but it should mainly be supporting creativity and individuality because after all, we are liven gin our society so we might as well make it the best it can be.
Reply
Evelyn Sullivan
12/8/2016 06:31:00 pm
As we discussed in class, the idea of whether man needs government is good or bad really ping pongs back and fourth due to the many arguments you can make for both sides. Although if I had to choose a side to agree with, I would tend to agree with Rousseau. Government in a lot of cases can cause people to want to rebel and can ruin people. All babies are born pure and innocent and they start to change due to our society, and what they have learned and whitnessed. Way back, as the video called our "state of nature", I agree that man was born pure and innocent not evil and fearful. The thing that changes them is the jealousy and inequality and makes everyone want to be better... resulting someone holding all the power in the end. Government now a days holds all of the power, and I think some of it is necessary to protect our human rights and safety. Rousseau says how he thinks we only need a few simple rules like don't kill, don't steal, ect. Those simple rules would protect our safety, but now there are laws for every little thing that goes wrong and I feel a lot of them do limit creativity and freedom. Therefore I agree with rousseau(kind of in the middle but leaning rousseau) with his view that humans are born innocent and pure and that society ruins them, and his view that there shouldn't be strong government yet a few rules to protect safety.
Reply
ray ray
12/9/2016 08:25:15 am
I believe that like evelyn said the idea of whether there should be strict or no rules, the idea ping pongs back and forth. I believe that there should be something in between. I almost think that society should be something like it was for the indians. where they lived peacefully and with little restriction but when hostilities came about the solved them and then went back to their life.
Reply
Cyntaia Birch
12/8/2016 06:57:15 pm
I agree with Locke's idea. I think power should be shared. Things never end well when there's only one person in charge, the either screw every thing up or they get killed. I disagree with Locke's idea that government is only wanted to benefit the public. A government benefits the public in many ways,but the public and the government do not always agree. The government is there to listen to the people and try and over ride certain laws. I agree wit Rousseau when he says the government is needed to enforece social contract. The government is there to listen to the peoples complaints, which helps avoid protest and riots.
Reply
Christina W.
12/8/2016 07:04:32 pm
A.) In my opinion, Locke's view is most realistic; it is a balance of the two extreme ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau. Both ideas are correct, but like everything else in the world, there needs to be a balance; too much of a good thing is a bad thing. If played out in society, both views would be getting equal amounts of their ideas into the government making it fair. However, if society were to choose one over the other, one would be overjoyed and the other would be extremely disappointed or even aggravated. Therefore, for the benefit of society, John Locke's ideas were key. Everyone has natural rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People were free to have these. However, there would be a government involved in the matter. The government would not restrict or apply heavy regulations to their way of life, but would protect the citizens from others who thought about taking away one of those rights. Over all, I think balance is the key to success and happiness, which is why I agree with John Locke's idea of natural rights.
Reply
Bella ybarra
12/8/2016 07:30:08 pm
I would have to agree with Locke, because maintaining a balance is completely necessary to survival. The rebels in society, or artists, create and invent out of pure necessity. That necessity can only come out of a time of need, and a time of need is constant with the current democracy that we have now in the United States. Not to say that it is bad, but to say that it is good. A chunk of concepts supported in the society of the United States are commonly and unconsciously agreed upon and take place in our daily lives. The ones that don't exist comfortably are for the purpose of artists, scientists, scholars, etc to question and advance upon. Therefore, this maintains almost a perfect balance, for the United States of America were built with a strict following of Locke's research and opinions.
Reply
Quinn Moore
12/8/2016 08:03:36 pm
Personally I feel that the ideas John Locke brings to the table out of the three philosophers is the most practical. Locke believed that every human being had the right to life, liberty, and property. The idea that creativity is crucial for society to continue to change and develop for the better is bout about by him. If everyone acted the same identical way nothing would change and every culture wouldn't be able to evolve and resume to prosper. For example in the day and age we are in now technology has been a huge part of our lives, in fact most of the world depends on it. We would'nt even be able to do this assignment without it! Inventiveness brings life purpose and the ability to modify the world. Locke thought even though it should be a given for everyone to freely expand their minds creatively, there must be order to a certain extent. If the human race were to be given complete independence and self-govern the world would become complete chaos. This was where he came up concept of a balance between the two. The social contract theory is an agreement where a society comes to a consensus and agree to certain standards they must abide by. I feel that this idea is not sensible for the reason that not everyone in a community will al have the same agreements. In any environment whether its a school or even a country there will always be opinions and ideas that differentiate from others and that is life. It would be impossible for everyone to be truly happy with a social contract.
Reply
Ethan Christensen
12/9/2016 05:00:42 am
I believe Locke's method for government is superior. I think that people are naturally gonna be good if they want to survive in their life. But even so a country needs to have some rules to at least keep the country from going into anarchy. For the most part I think that people given enough freedom will flourish more than those who don't. They'll be more creative leading to more innovation and furthering our society as a whole. All in all, people need to have freedom but there still needs to be some control for people that get out of line.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
12/9/2016 06:13:38 pm
But Ethan, Anarchy is good. Freedom isn't something that can be limited- otherwise it isn't freedom. Which is why Lockean Ideology works best of course, because it places more power in the hands of the individual rather than having the power rest in a single person or a collective. The country is a thought founded upon the original ideas of Locke, and therefore it was good. But since the 18th Century we have strayed so far as to be unrecognizable to the Founding Fathers. The United States of America has sacrificed Freedom for security and in the words of Ben Franklin a country that makes that sacrifice "deserves neither".
Reply
Michael Gilson
12/9/2016 08:29:42 am
I believe Rousseau had the correct idea about man. Man itself is not corrupt. Society is the corrupt one. When you are a infant you have this great imagination and do what you want because you don't care what people think. As you get older you get influenced and persuaded into good or bad things. People can cooperate and learn to live with each other if that's how we made the social norm in society. I don't think government is bad but I truly believe people would be fine working together if thats how we were all raised. You should be able to over throw "leaders" if you feel you aren't getting the right treatment. Man can control himself if everyone is willing to cooperate. I understand every argument you make can go either way but I truly believe man is pure and is only ruined by society.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
12/9/2016 06:07:16 pm
Rousseau also believed in rule by the people. Direct rule. Trouble with that is that if someone disagrees with the majority, Rousseau's perfect community would remove them. That's tyranny in its purest form. It's actually similar to the Physical Removal Principle of Hans Hermann Hoppe, those who society finds disagreeable will be forced out by force if necessary. Of course followers of Hoppean Ideology are usually rabid anti-communists, so often times the use of Physical Removal are reserved only for Communists and Socialists, and it is most frequently used in the comical sense such as the classic "Throw the Commies out of Helicopters" line. Rousseau's thinking only leads to the persecution of any who disagree with the majority and that is tyrannical at the very best.
Reply
Brigid Clanton-Calnan
12/9/2016 01:06:36 pm
Choice A: I think that Locke has the right idea. There are many ways that our society is screwed up but there are also many ways that it isn't. Like for example, in the past years there has been more and more rights given to the GBLTQ comunity, like marriage rights. We are a very loving culture in some ways but in others we are very strict where we really dont have to be. For example some of the police brutality has really gone way too far. As a matter of fact in the last couple days, police have gone to the extremes to remove protesters who have been nothing but peaceful. Rousseau was in the middle of both extremes and I think that he is in the right mind to be there.
Reply
Jackie Prestininzi
12/9/2016 05:26:15 pm
Personally, I believe that the best government and theory of human nature is John Lockes. Locke's theory, I feel is a “ happy median”. With Hobbes’s theory being very strict with power and being pro-strong government and Rousseau's theory being too weak to ever have any structure for a society, Locke's theory will best fit a community. The reason for these theories is based on a social contract. The social contract was created to benefit the people. Therefore, I believe that the best theory for a society would be the one that best suits everyone. In Locke's theory, his ideas benefit everyone. He satisfies the people who love a strong central government by giving them government power, but he also satisfies the people who are against a strong central government by giving them the power to overthrow the government. In accordance to Niccolo Machiavelli and Friedrich Nietzsche’s arguments about how society should not have a social contract that you are born into, I believe that there is a valid argument presented. Its feasible to understand where Machiavelli and Nietzsche are coming from because times change and new generations of people are born with different ideas and opinions. It's unfair for them to not express their ideas due to the social contract they have to conform to. Also like they said, society is all about power struggle and working to get it. However with a social contract, you have already conformed to the type of power that a community has agreed too. If there is already a type of government that the whole community has agreed to, there's no point for citizens to try and run for government and receive power. I personally believe in a social contract. In today's society, with all people voicing their different opinions, finding common unity in a social contract would benefit a community. If all citizens agree to this “contract”, there would be less issues with power struggle in a community. I believe all community’s would benefit from a social contract.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
12/9/2016 06:01:12 pm
Hobbes's idea is tyranny by a minority, Rousseau's is tyranny by majority, and Locke is tyranny by no one. The Three Basic Tenets set down by Locke are Life, Liberty, and Property. These unalienable rights currently form the philosophical backbone of the United States, more fundamental to the idea of Freedom than even the Bill of Rights in the Constitution- these three proposals mean that human life for simply being human life is intrinsically valuable. So therefore Lockean Ideology is the superior because it places significantly more value in the individual person, whereas Hobbes places trust in the select few and Rousseau believes in the group as an entity and all those who reject the main group are outcasts. Society is formed around Power, the Power to enact force upon the "unbelievers" and Humanity is driven forward by those who want to be more powerful.
Reply
Brendan Loftus
12/9/2016 06:30:45 pm
Ooh, I'm just gonna throw this out there. Both Hobbes and Rousseau believe Government is NEEDED, only Locke dares to claim that Government is WANTED. We don't want to have the freedom to kill our neighbors, we want order, peace, and generally to be left alone. We want to live in a society where survival is not the constant in everyone's mind. Government is purely VOLUNTARY, which is why it's called a Social CONTRACT. We sort of nod along and agree to it because it protects us. True Freedom can never be achieved because there will always be those who ruin it for everyone else. It's like the mathematical concept of an Asymptote, the coordinates can never approach real 0, and in the same fashion we must always have a certain amount of government at least in the form of moral codes or religion (or the NAP) and we can never be truly free to do whatever we want because that would be Chaos. And Chaos is evil, and evil is bad. Thank you, Thank you.
Reply
Julia Schneider
12/10/2016 04:28:14 pm
I believe that John Locke has the best theory. Hobbes was way to focused on having a strong government with strict rules with no room for interpretation. In my opinion this can cause many problems because when somebody tells you that you can't do something it makes the desire to do it increase. Like if your parents tell you that your not allowed to eat pizza and you go over your friends house and they have pizza, you're going to want to eat it because you're going against your parents. You feel like you've been wrongfully restrained from it and you want to see what it's like. But I also feel that Rousseau'a theory is way to free and forgiving. With no rules there can be people that will live peacefully, but there could also be people that want to act out and do something cause it's not illegal and they won't get in trouble for doing it. I think that both of these social theorists are right in some aspects of there arguments which is why Locke has the better theory because he takes both of their ideas and makes a compromise. Another point I have is that there are people in the world that are born into this world and are happy and peaceful and thrive off of freedom, but there are also people that are born selfish and aggressive and need strict laws to thrive. We can't base our entire government on a half or a third of the population's personalities and behaviors. We have to take everybody into account and create a system that benefits as much people as possible. Locke's theory is the one that is the closest to benefiting most of our country and it is the bases of what our government is today.
Reply
Sima Vaidya
12/11/2016 10:31:34 am
I believe Locke’s theory. Everyone is free to do what they want, but they should not exceed the limits. There should be laws that apply a small limit in freedom for the people, but to improve the way society is ran, so nothing bad happens if people exceed the limits of freedom. Everyone should hold the power and have a say in government, but there should be branches of government that make decisions for the betterment of society. Locke explains that when a person is born, they inherit three key rights: life, liberty, and property. He says that if the three rights are properly balanced within everyone in society, then peace will be met. The government does not have the ability to take away these rights. I believe that Hobbes idea on social contract is too harsh. You can’t assume that a man is born evil. When babies are born, they are pure. Society has not influenced them in any way. But once they come into the real world and tackle real world experiences, that person may become evil, but may also stay good. I also do not believe in the idea that the government should carry all power. People need a say in government. If the government has all the power, then people won’t have their freedom. The government will be controlling the daily lives of the people, which also goes against the amendments about the rights of people in the Constitution. In my opinion, Locke’s theory is the one that society in America is heading towards.
Reply
Anna Moore
12/11/2016 10:44:35 am
Out of the three philosophers I believe that Locke's theory of government is best. Rosseau and Hobbes both have valid points but they take in too extreme. In Hobbes ideal world the government would be too strict and would cause people to want to overthrow, but I do agree with his desire to have rules. On the other hand Rosseau's ideal world is much too free and I don't think humans can live in a world with no government. Locke is able to find the balencd and I agree that humans need to have a government only to protect their basic rights. The government should also rule other aspects of life that couldn't be trusted to a private organization. This way the people will feel protected but will have anough liberty to live the way they want and not hate the society they live in. When it comes to the social contact theory I do believe that society is a contract. People are born into a world and don't sign up for for their government but as they grow older they start to accept the government. People want to work with others and form a government that works best for them. In some cases it is about power struggles but not in every society. Deep down people will try to compromise to make a better world.
Reply
Donovan Turner
12/11/2016 01:14:04 pm
In my opinion, the philosopher with the best theory of government would be John Locke. Hobbes has a good point where he says people are evil. Although I don't agree with this statement, you can't trust anyone in this world and without a strong government, we would have anarchy. Where i don't agree is the fact that Hobbes believes the government should be all powerful and unable to be overthrown. On the other hand, Rosseau believes Man is good. I agree with this because i think it depends on how you are brought up which makes you into a person. I disagree with the thought that we don't need a government. If there was no government, it would be anarchy, and through that anarchy, someone would become powerful and make them self the king or dictator etc. The reason i agree with Locke is because he is right in between. He believes the government should benefit the people and that people are inherently good. He also thinks the government should be able to be overthrown and that power is shared. I agree with these theory's because they are not too lose and also not too restricting. This is why i believe america is one of the best countries in the world.
Reply
Lauren Marcolus
12/11/2016 04:06:51 pm
Addressing the first question, I definitely agree with the majority of these comments in saying that Locke's ideas about the "social contract" are superior as they allow the people to both survive and thrive. The idealistic societies of both Hobbes and Rousseau are flawed. Hobbes believed the best form of society is ruled by tyranny. He idealized a society where strict rules, harsh punishments, and limitation of freedom and power of the people prevail. Where a small group or even single person holds all the power. The majority has no representation. Hobbes believed this is what needed to be done to keep order and unity. I believe it will provoke rebellion, and, if it doesn't, it will just be a miserable society to live in.
Reply
Trinity McQuillan
12/11/2016 04:09:43 pm
a. Personally I believe in Locke's theory. One reason is because he's the compromise between two radicals. He takes into consideration people's rights and the moral aspects of letting people have a helping hand in their own society but he doesn't give them too much power like Rousseau does. Government officials should have set credentials and have some experience in politics. They should also be agreed upon by the majority but then work with what they're in charge of. Like I was saying in class if we only have one absolute person talking we only ever hear one opinion. And if we al start talking at once no one will be heard. If we, as a society, agree to wait until our turn to speak then everyone will be heard and a group of officials will respond in a way that pleases the majority.
Reply
Desiree Marshall
12/11/2016 04:47:23 pm
A) I would definitely have to agree with Locke's theory because it's a compromise between the two different ideas of man and society. As we have seen with many topics, extremes can be dangerous, which is why I believe coming to a compromise would be the best idea. Humans should have freedom, but with this freedom will always come those who take it to the extreme, or who may become radical which serves as a problem. You see, the problem isn't exactly the human race as a whole, it's that handful of humans that would take freedom the wrong way. This is the exact reason that we need some kind of authority, to make sure humans don't get carried away with their freedoms. Expanding on what many people said during class, I believe that society should be the parent that lets their kid go outside, but tells them that they can't run in the street because it's dangerous. Locke's theory embodies this perfectly, the only thing it's missing is what this perfect compromise is, The one fatal flaw of this plan is that for certain situations you need more freedoms, and for others you need a stronger authority to keep the interests of others in mind. Humans are not born evil, but some can become evil. If we give them unlimited freedom, than we could have some sick things occurring in this world, and no one wants to live in a world where serial killers and twisted people were able to carry out the things they do without consequence. However, if the government has too much power, this could either cause the people to become really unhappy, or it could cause people to rebel against power even more than they would. If you look at today's world, there are many things that are illegal yet some people still do it. I feel like this would be the same if the government had too much power to a much larger extent. Both are good things, and they can be great together in the right amount.
Reply
Grace Noglows
12/11/2016 05:54:51 pm
I believe that Locke’s theory of human nature and government is best because he believes that government should be powerful to help keep the world in check. If there are no rules being enforced, then people will do anything they want and it can become very dangerous. He thought that the government wanted to benefit the people and it can overthrow the people also. This will help in the future. He believes that power should be shared between the legislative and executive branch. This way no branch will over rule and it will be equal.
Reply
Hailey Chace
12/11/2016 09:01:31 pm
At first I agreed with Rousseau. I thought that power should be direct and that the government can be overthrown in a time where it could be needed. However, now I agree with Locke. Locke says that the government can still be overthrown, but it is wanted to benefit the public. Also, Locke says that power should be shared: a legislative and executive branch in government. This shows that work in the government will be equal. Furthermore, I think a "contract" is the right model for thinking about society. The word contact means an agreement that can be enforced by law. This to me, means that in society we all have a duty or things to upkeep. The law that enforces a social contract helps society to remain constant and in check. I believe a contract is what keeps society from unhinged actions.
Reply
Colleen
12/12/2016 01:53:41 pm
Reply
Patrick Sullivan
12/12/2016 03:03:06 pm
A) Personally, I believe in Locke's theory. I believe this because the human race can be good at times, but at other times the human race can be quite vicious. I also believe that society should have freedom, but not too much because things could get out of hand. For example, there are rules that every one should follow like not killing another human. Yet some people do kill other people. What society needs is for someone to enforce these rules so that people can not go against the rules and get away with it. Without this authority protecting these rules it brings fear among society. By giving up a little freedom and obtain authority it allows this fear to go away and for people to keep their freedom. The one problem that society faces is to choose which rules to enforce. Slowly, more and more freedom is being taken away. What society should do is slow down and follow Locke's theory. This will give people a good balance of authority and freedom.
Reply
Hannah Nishiura
12/12/2016 03:59:14 pm
In the perspective on society, Rousseau and Hobbes are both extremists of their beliefs. Rousseau refuses to see any harm humans can carry, and Hobbes sees only the evil societal humans have in them. In my opinion, Locke had the only perspective of society that was rational and reasonable. I don't believe that authority and fear should control people's actions, but I also see how humans can be derogatory and evil if not maintained. If Rousseau's ideal society had held today, there would be no control over others, and there would be no order to how society would function, causing chaos. However, Hobbes' ideal society uses repression and hierarchy to maintain itself. If there was no room for freedom, where would love, or emotions, or creativity live? With Locke's ideas, there would be a certain in between for a society to properly function. I personally do not have much faith in the intentions and actions of society and the human race in general, but completely restricting others of freedom and happiness is irrational. The reason so many agree with Locke is because without the extremes, we know that humans are not always perfect and need some kind of societal construction, but without freedom, there would be no art, and nothing left in the world that defines our characters as individual.
Reply
Allie Cohen
12/12/2016 05:49:24 pm
John Locke's ability to compromise between radical theorists, on a social contract, makes him the most agreeable. Although both Rousseau and Hobbes had complete opposing positions, the ultimate destiny of society would end up in the weak preyed on by the stronger people. Rousseau's naïve faith in human nature completely disregards competiveness and viciousness. Rousseau's plan would allow the more charismatic characters to play an advent role in society, without others challenging their authority, leaving society in the hands of not the most suitable people, but rather the most influential. Also, having practically no restraints on society supports opportunities for more crimes to occur. Hobbes suggestion for strict authority only suggests tyranny, that would also support charismatic authority over suitable authority. Another negative aspect on Hobbes ideal society, is the fact that rights of people may be completely ignored, and the outbreak for wars would be more frequent. The balance of freedom and authority is necessary for a prosperous society, which John Locke is able to compact into one contract.
Reply
Charlotte Jansky
12/12/2016 05:55:46 pm
I think that Locke had the most effective theory of human nature and governing style. I believe it is important to have a balance of both authority with reliance on the people for their own creativity. In the government, everyone just wants to be happy and satisfied that their lifestyle is represented in the wants of their leaders. The human race in itself is not bad; it just yearns to be governed in a way that benefits the most people in society. Locke had the ideology that the most important thing is that everyone has the inalienable rights: life, liberty, and property. This ensures that individuals are happy because the government is protecting their most valued personal rights.
Reply
Jack niesz
12/13/2016 04:38:38 am
Lockes view on society is easily the best option because it is the best of both worlds. It ties together both of the other philosophers ideas about the way the world should be run. I believe that in Rousseau's society, there would be too many bad eggs that ruin it for everyone and the world would just turn into a place that no one would want to live in because it is too dangerous. I also believe that in Hobbes society, everyone would operate almost as a robot. It seems that in his society, he doesn't want anyone to have any fun and just live. In his society, people would be living without experiencing life to the fullest. That's why I believe that we as Americans, living in a society closest to the ideas of Locke, have it just right.
Reply
Galina Gordon
12/13/2016 04:05:34 pm
a.) I feel the best way to rule and lead others is with a level head. Rousseau creates the idea that it's the people that are good and the society is what corrupts and disfigures the naturally good person. This is very true since the only way people form opinions on issues or even create them to begin with is through the world causing doubt in one's self that the way they are living could be better. This causes people to see the flaws that lie in the government or leader that's supposedly "The smartest and best person for the job".
Reply
Julia Rousseau
12/13/2016 06:27:37 pm
Locke's ideology is superior to Rousseau's and Hobbes's. His philosophy is a middle ground between the two extremes dependent on life, liberty, and property. A government needs to be balanced with enough rules to let humanity survive and enough freedom to let them thrive. Everybody wants to be happy and feel safe, so a equal government is needed. Not anything too restricting with unfair principles, like Hobbes suggest. But we also can not live with a government without rules so everyone can run wild. Locke's balance between these two ideas creates the perfect basis for a government.
Reply
Murray Elinson
12/13/2016 07:02:38 pm
Human nature is composed of many aspects that cause humans to act in different ways. Thomas Hobbes, a social contract theorist, believed that human nature was purely aggressive and violent, and it needed strict authority to keep order. Another theorist, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, though that human nature was more creative and cooperative and humans should have more freedom. I agree with John Locke, who believed that there should be a balance of freedom and authority. I agree with Locke because humans cannot just have unlimited freedom otherwise it would be chaotic, but there cannot be strict authority because humans will not be creative and they will not progress as a result. Locke thinks that there need to a balance of both and I think that a balance of both can be the most beneficial. Everything around everyone is innovation and that creative mind, not suppressed by strict authority, is what is needed to create new ideas and different ways of thinking.
Reply
John Tuohy
12/14/2016 08:40:20 am
In my opinion I find I agree more with Locke's system/view of government in this case. His model allows a flow between both sides, almost yin and yang of tid bits of Hobbes ideas and some of Rousseau's. Locke took the idea that humans naturally should be free but also added that there still needs to be a government that enforces law strictly; but not to the point of restricting rights. This basic freedoms were granted to everyone, but strict laws also existed to combat crime. I really like this model since it takes the best from both angles and makes good use of the ideas in tandem. People need to be granted basic rights/freedoms but rules should also be intact too. Hobbes had a too strict view of the government that would lead to a miserable and possibly rebellious populous, while Rousseau's model was a little too wild with not enough rules. And even if the Locke model became something that needed to be overthrown, Locke himself supported the overthrowing of corrupt government. With this in mid, Locke created a modular government that is balanced out and contains the best parts of many ideas. In this, Locke was able to satisfy many and this even became the U.S. form of government to an extent. Hobbes wanted power to be absolute while Rousseau wanted it shared directly, Locke hits the sweet spot by distributing it among elected officials; this way the people control who is best to lead a government. And with this Locke made a system that allowed for freedom with order.
Reply
Shea Grant
1/2/2017 08:34:11 pm
I think Locke’s form of government is the most rational out of the three viewpoints. It allows for the individual to operate solo, but also forces a group initiative if the government is deemed inappropriate. As we discussed in class, I believe man is inherently good and should be treated as such. However, each individual’s situation shapes them into who they are as a person, which could result in good or bad. This is why Locke’s theory would work. It leaves enough room for the good to do good and enough structure for the bad to be subdued so everyone may live in peace. I don’t think an argument against the use of the word ‘contract’ makes sense because society truly is a contract as is government, in whatever form. Just because you are born into a set situation doesn’t mean you cannot leave and live on your own. But, if you aren’t allowed to leave because of an oppressive government, no one can personally stop you from rebelling. You may die but you do not have to agree to anything, so in it’s entirety- society and government are both contracts in some form.
Reply
Sophia Morales
1/17/2017 07:21:38 pm
I believe Lockes theory is best because of the power that must be shared amongst the people and society. Of course there needs to be a middle ground between this to make sure there is not a imbalance. I also believe it is vital to have the branches of government suggested by Locke because there can not be one person deciding on a group of people. This is when society is in havoc. These branches need to be for the people and made up by the people. This way the voices of the people can be heard in a orderly way with structure so something can be done in government. Essentially, the people are the government. The government enforces the voices of the people.
Reply
Zoe Zeek
1/21/2017 11:50:00 am
I would have to agree with Rousseau's philosophy. Sometimes the government does bad on the people and there isn't much we can do about it besides watch it happen. The voice of the people aren't as important as it should be, powerful people with money run the government and do whatever they can to make a buck.
Reply
Zoe Zeek
1/21/2017 11:53:39 am
Also I would add in, people are naturally born good. It very much depends on who they are raised by. Parents have a huge influence on their children even if they don't realize it. Everyone comes into the world with good intentions but that can easily be changed by the people who influence you by simply being around you.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |