After Friday’s reading I have two topics that I would like discuss.
The first is whom do you agree with more, Thomas Hobbes or John Locke? Personally, I cannot truly take either side because I agree with certain elements from both of their arguments. According to Hobbes, people are inherently dishonest, violent, and uncontrollable in the State of Nature. On the other hand, Locke believes that people are intrinsically good people. Perhaps I am too cynical, but I agree with Thomas Hobbes. If morals and social norms did not limit people’s behavior, we would still be cavemen and cavewomen. However, I agree with the rest of Locke’s case. I do not believe that all power and trust should be invested in one dictator. Instead, the people should consent to an overall legislative assembly as Locke suggests. I understand that Hobbes believes that the worst possible evil is anarchy and that a strong leader must rule over the people. I agree that the government should be a powerful force in order to execute laws and control its people. However, a dictator in Hobbes’s theory would abuse power. Over all, I agree with Locke about how government should rule a country, but I concur with Hobbes’s theory of mankind in the State of Nature. What is your opinion?
The other topic I would like discuss is Voltaire’s opinion on human equality. Unlike Montesquieu who believed that all are created equal, Voltaire believed that inequality is inevitable. In his opinion, it is impossible for servants to have equal status as their masters. In some ways, I have to agree with Voltaire. Obviously, I believe that all people are created equal and that everyone should have the same opportunities. However, it is impossible for a country to function if everyone has the same opportunities. If everyone had the same amount of money, then surely everyone would complete a high level of education. As people in each family became more educated and aware about the world, values about the importance of education would be passed down. Therefore, people would naturally work harder. In this scenario, society would dramatically alter for the better. The only drawback is who would physically build roads, take orders at a restaurant, or work as flight attendants? A constant society is completely impossible.
Personally, I agree with both. These two philosophers both had different views on state of nature, origin of society, origin of government and on rebellion because of the time in which they lived. These views and ideas given to us by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke change the way we view human nature, and can give us the ability to understand new ideas from different points of view. It is easy to agree with either John Locke or Thomas Hobbes, but in reality the both of them are correct on their theories.
ReplyDeleteAlso, i have to agree with what Voltaire believed. He believed that inequality is inevitable. I believe that all people are born equal, and should be treated and respected equally, but there is always going to be inequality. The world is not perfect, and there is always going to be the rich and the poor man, and like danielle said, the poor man is in no way going to have the same opportunities that the rich man has.
This question, then, is for both Danielle and Nicole--how can you believe in both? Clearly their ideas are contradictory at certain points. So how can you reconcile them? How do you hold part of Hobbes's theory and part of Locke's? Where does each go wrong, and how?
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I agree with Hobbes's theory that humans are uncontrollable in the State of Nature. However, I disagree with the rest of his statements. On the other hand, I agree with all of Locke's statements on the government but not on how humans are in the State of Nature. If people are uncontrollable, as Hobbes suggested, then a dictator is not going to help society. Instead, an assembly of representatives, as Locke suggested, is better because it would not attempt to suppress its people. Therefore, I agree with both Hobbes and Locke, just on different points.
ReplyDeleteI agree with different parts of there theory. For example, Locke believed that in state of nature, people would be naturally equal; every person is free to do what he or she needs to do to survive. Whereas Hobbes believed that men are naturally enemies because they all want the same things, they fight because they see themselves as more valuable then others. Men live in constant state of war. I agree with Hobbes because it is true, humans do all want the same thing, to be successful, normal is not enough and most of us will do anything to get to the top. Also, as i stated above, in a sense, everyone in not equal. However, i agree with Locke, because everyone is free to do whatever he or she needs to do to survive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Thomas Hobbes view on human's original State of Nature. The need of an overbearing leader will to keep society in check is quite obvious because without a rule to follow, there is chaos. With a lack of common goal and direction, the human race's scattered ideas and morals will lead them no where. The idea of consequences for wrongdoings, enforced by these powerful leaders, will most certainly convince the majority of people to abide by the set laws. This brings us to his theory of human nature, and our need to be protective, and incredibly self interest. If punishments are declared, it is of course in anyone's self interest to veer away from wrongdoing. Furthermore, we are forced to ponder the issue of the raw selfishness in the enforcers. Is it a possibility that a leader will take advantage of his or her position? Although I can not reject this as a possibility, such leader would surely be taken down by a rebellion. Therefore, it is in the leader's best interest to help his/her territory prosper. Thomas Hobbes had the right idea when describing raw human nature as over-protective and selfish, in addition to noting that a strict government would help contain such problematic characteristics.
ReplyDelete