Comparison Of Hobbes’ And Locke’s Political Philosophies Essay Example for Free

Comparison Of Hobbes’ And Locke’s Political Philosophies Essay Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both contemporary philosophers who were made famous for their political philosophies especially on areas of government and the community. Although Hobbes was born forty one years ahead of Locke, both have agreed on certain ideas but remained in contrast with others. In this paper we will try to compare the main philosophies held by Hobbes and Locke, focusing on their opinions on government, community, leadership and the concept of social contract or covenant. This paper will also attempt to align the said philosophies in contemporary events particularly in the American life after September 11 attack. At the end of this paper, this author aims to establish the fact that Locke’s political philosophies are more practical, consistent and acceptable over that of Hobbes. Hobbes and Locke are particularly interested in human beings and how they interact with the world. Both believing in the existence of God, they both insist that human beings need a leader- a feature of human community that is a vital element of their survival. 1â€Å"Without a leader, the country would fall away into nothing†. They however differ on the type of leader that a community should have in order to survive. For Hobbes, there’s only one man that should rule or govern the people, and that is a king (Hobbes, Thomas 1994, p. 83). Hobbes maintains that it is only this king who should be given the authority and the responsibility to write laws, make decision and consequently of controlling the people. In order for people to survive, people are therefore compelled to obey the commands of the ruler, both in religious and government matters. Locke however believes the other way around. For John Locke, it is rather the people who should run the government and not the king. Consequently, Locke points to the idea that the responsibility of uniting and taking care of the needs of the whole community lies in the hands of the people and not on the sole control of one person. Unlike Hobbes, Locke somehow points to a democratic form of government wherein the people are given the right to participate in all affairs of the government including the responsibility of deciding what is best for the general public. Locke also suggests that the people should rather have to decide on who they wanted to rule over them. Moreover, since the power lies on the people, they have the right to overthrow a wicked ruler in the same way as they have decided to have him seated in the position (Locke, John 1997, p. 22). Because Hobbes maintains authoritarian form of government, he insists that 1â€Å"society could not exist except by the power of the state†. This is directly contrary to Locke’s view that man is inherently a social being and thus has the need and the ability to interact with others. Hobbes idea then simply would suggest that man is necessarily a creature that cannot decide for him nor does he has the ability to discern what is good and what is evil because he needs a ruler in order to establish a society. Moreover the statement suggests that man has to submit to an authority and after which all individual rights are gone and so man is compelled to obey. It is also important to note that Hobbes, in this aspect believes that man does not have the right to rebel against the ruler since the latter is assumed to be someone who does all things good and lawful. For Hobbes, the right thing for man to do is to shut up and obey and once this is done, anyone does not have the right to kill the obedient one. Because the state is the supreme ruler in the society, the ruler then is assumed to be wise enough to the point that all his affairs, his views and decisions are deemed just. Hobbes also assumes that 1â€Å"all of society is a direct creation of the state and a reflection of the will of the ruler†. Locke however has a better and more practical idea that is obviously been the basis of most governments, especially those that employ the democratic form of government. On the concept of social contract, Locke believes that by giving up our rights to â€Å"exact retribution for crimes†, we are in return given the right to just, impartial protection of our properties and out lives (Harris, Ian 1994). Relative to this, man still retain his rights to life and liberty. The state, according to Locke has only one role, and that is 1â€Å"to ensure that justice is seen to be done†. The ruler therefore is necessarily not the sole decision maker in the society, rather he is just an instrument appointed by the general public to serve justice and maintain peace. The government therefore, as peacemakers should not be involved in any form of injustice or any act that may disturb peace in the society. Otherwise, Locke believes that the people are given the right to kill or overthrow the ruler. Although Hobbes is in favor of the unlimited power of the state, he justified his point well by stating that the purpose of such unlimited power is to end all conflict and contention. Because he regarded people as creatures who are incapable of knowing what is good and evil, Hobbes believes that people have the tendency to freely live a material life which would result into conflict. Thus the avoid this, the state is given the sole and unlimited power over them. 1Both Hobbes and Locke believe that there is an implied contract between the state and the people as soon as a ruler is being placed in power. The difference however is that Locke regard that contract as something that impliedly sets the ruler as a judge over the affairs of the people while Hobbes set that contract as something that sets the ruler as a master of the people. Hobbes points out â€Å"all contracts are binding, even if entered into from fear of violence or pain of death† (Hobbes, 1994 p. 86). Hobbes does maintains that man does not have the ability to recognize good from evil because he believes that good and evil are established and defined by the will of the state (Hobbes, 1994 p. 28). This means that good and evil exist only because something or things are defined as such by the ruler. Hobbes then points to the idea that there exist no definite standard or basis for man to know what is the right thing to do and what is wrong. As with the idea of property and its ownership, Hobbes believes that the state is the one defining the property of somebody. Because man cannot discern good from evil, human beings without the state or the ruler cannot live in peace. Hobbes further assumes that peace can only exist and reign in a society when its people subject themselves to one absolute and common master. From here Hobbes might be suggesting that it is impossible for the world to experience peace since the world does have different rulers. On the other hand, Locke believes that humans inherently has the capacity to discern what is good from evil and are therefore capable of knowing what is lawful and what is not. â€Å"Most importantly, they are capable of telling the difference between what is theirs and what belongs to someone else† (Locke, John 2002, p. 87). Locke however recognizes the fact that despite this inherent capacity and ability, humans act the other way around. In Locke’s view, the only norm should be peace and nothing else (Cox, R. H. 1960, p. 32). Unlike Hobbes, Locke believes that man has the capacity to live in peace by refraining from hurting other and from molesting or invading their properties. Since man has the inherent capacity to discern what is good from evil, it not therefore impossible for the world to achieve peace even with the existence of different rulers. All rulers of different countries in the world are human beings who are supposed to be mature and wise enough to know what is best for their people. Because most of these rulers are elected by the people, then it is likely that it is the general preference of the people that dominates the government affairs. I also agree with Locke that when the ruler placed by the people on the seat of power abused his political powers, then the people have all the right to overthrow him and replace with somebody deserving. In the contemporary world, Hobbes and Locke’s political theories can still be relevant especially that these have, in bulk, something to do with rights and liberties of the people and the role of the government on managing the lives of its people. After the September 11 attack, the American government has been very vigilant and has somehow gone beyond the normal process of ensuring the security of the Americans. Such security measures are so rigid and strict to the point that the freedom-loving Americans thought there are losing much of their liberties. The government in defense ensures the public that such implementation of security measures plainly for national security. As for me, such measures are preferred because my security, that of my family and all Americans is of higher importance than my liberties. Let us remember that the role of the state is to ensure that justice is being served at all times, as Locke maintains. Part of serving justice is for the state to implement measures that see to it that nobody in its jurisdiction is being oppressed or hurt. To set up surveillance cameras, place military men in public places, have everyone’s baggage inspected in airports, hotels or malls are part of security measures and I do not see anything that suggests these things to be invading anyone’s liberties. Besides what is liberty if we will all die under crumbles of another attack? The President has been elected by the people and it is assumed that his rule has the consent of the majority. The American people are wise enough to discern who the best person at the Presidential seat is. By casting our votes, we are entrusting our security and the general condition of the American people in the hands on the person we voted upon. To entrust our security to the elected President does not mean we are being robots who have nothing more to do but to shut up and obey as what Hobbes suggest. To have security measures implemented in public places does not at all violate our liberties and thus we do not need to regain them. I believe that the American government still acts within the limits of justice and that I still regard all measures to be actions wherein human security rather than vengeance is of higher priority. I believe that the American government has not yet failed with its task of protecting its people so we as citizens do not have yet the right to rebel or withdraw our support. Let us remember that failure to take its primary responsibility is the only requisite Locke has provided in order for the people to have reasons to rebel. We still have our full liberties with us and security measures are implemented in order to regain one thing we have lost in the 911 attack: justice. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cox, R. H. Locke on War and Peace. OUP: Oxford, 1960. Harris, Ian. The Mind of John Locke. CUP: Cambridge, 1994. An excellent contextual analysis of the political and religious mindset of Locke’s Britain. Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis: Hacket. 1994. Locke, John. â€Å"Essay on the Law of Nature. † In Political Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Ed. Mark Goldie. CUP: Cambridge, 2002. 1Locke versus Hobbes. 24 November 2007. http://www. jim. com/hobbes. htm Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Ed. Peter Laslett. CUP: Cambridge, 1997. Locke, John. â€Å"Two Tracts on Government. † In Political Writings. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. Ed. Mark Goldie. CUP: Cambridge, 2002.

Controversy About Vaccinations Against Infectious Diseases Essay

Vaccination Against Infectious Diseases Vaccines are one of the most controversial topics in modern medicine and will continue to attract more attention in the years ahead. Most new parents dutifully take their babies to their doctor to be vaccinated, at the prescribed times. However, over the last few decades, there have been several scares concerning vaccinations, and the possible side effects of them. Some parents have refused to have their child vaccinated because of some of these scares, and the truth is, they have been blown out of proportion by the press and it can be very confusing for the general public. In order to balance this extraordinary influence, parents will need to make a well informed decision about vaccines for their children. It is, of course, very important that before anybody embarks on a course of vaccinations, they should know both the benefits and the risks associated with them. Therefore, in order to begin thinking about whether vaccinations should be compulsory for all children, there are some issues to be addressed. Some parents may feel it unsafe to put chemicals into such young children; especially if there have been uncertainties about particular vaccines. An example of this is the DPT (Diphtheria, Pertussis, and Tetanus) vaccine. Infants are meant to receive at 2/3/4 months. However, there are several side effects that parents fear, although very unlike to occur, they are very drastic and have stopped parents have letting their children have the vaccine. People have also been unsure about the effectiveness of the diphtheria vaccine, infact when the vaccine was once compulsory; there was a 17... ...errible diseases that could harm them, and since the vaccines have been introduced, there have been lower death rates in children. There may be some side effects to some of the vaccinations, but it is not worth risking not vaccinating them. It is unsafe to assume that herd immunity will wipe out the risk of catching the disease as so many parents today are not having their child vaccinated. I feel that it is a good idea that under most circumstances, vaccination against infectious diseases should be made compulsory for all children. In a situation when a child is more likely to react very badly to a particular vaccine, alternative methods could be used. But I feel it important that children of today are all immunised so that, in the future, hopefully, such diseases would not be a threat to the children of tomorrow.

Nuclear Weapons should be Extirpate Essay

Nuclear weapons are considered serious threats to the human race and have made the world an insecure residence for living organisms. Nuclear weapons are destructive weapons that obtain its force from nuclear fission and nuclear fusion reaction. Both are theses producers are very harmful for the living organism. Nuclear weapons were first conducted in world war2 on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. It killed approximately 70,000 died immediately from the explosion and another 70,000 died from radiation within five years. The killing included the women and children. All nuclear weapons must be abolished around the world for making world secure, and save budget money. The entire world will be more secure if the planet will free of the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the only type of weapons in existence that have the capacity to annihilate the human species and countless other species. The reactions of the nuclear weapons live alive after many years of it’s used. The best example is Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. The nuclear bomb was used on these cities during the world war2, but Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still suffering with the reaction of nuclear bomb. Japanese cannot grow any crop in Nagasaki and Hiroshima because the fusion reaction of nuclear bomb is still alive. Without abolition, there is always the danger that nuclear weapons will proliferate, that more and more countries will obtain them. The existence of nuclear weapons leaves open possibility that a nuclear exchange might take place. The nuclear weapons are extra ordinary costly, and the costs continue into the indefinite future. Billions of dollars are wasted each year to pay for nuclear weapons. The cost of research, development, testing, deployment, and maintenance of the nuclear program is very high. Even it becomes higher, when we include the costs of damage to the land, illness of uranium miners,  cancer deaths from nuclear pollution, and the storage of nuclear wastage. Since early 1940s the U.S. alone has spent $4 trillion on nuclear arms. If current policies are implemented, the U.S. will continue to spend some $25-30 billion on nuclear forces. What is the more important education or nuclear bombs that can kill the human? Today, Congress and Administration are watching government spending, shrinking and eliminating programs and taking measures to reduce the deficit. Despite this, the central feature of national security spending for the past fifty years, nuclear weapons, has been rarely touched. Possession of nuclear weapon does not mean that the country is powerful. Many developed countries such as, Australia, Germany, and Spain do not have nuclear bomb. Some countries have already given up nuclear weapons, showing that it is possible for a nation to be secure without nuclear bomb. Three former Soviet republics, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, became nuclear weapons free states by volunteering transferring their nuclear warheads to Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union. South Africa actually developed a small nuclear arsenal clandestinely, and then dismantled it. Argentina and Brazil have also eliminated their nuclear weapons programs even though they achieved initial success in these programs. These countries give a massage to the nuclear powers that you can succeed without nuclear bomb. In summary, the above analysis shows that nuclear weapons are weapons of great destruction. Our government wastes over thirty- three billion dollars a year of our tax money. Furthermore, nuclear weapons pose serious health risk to those around them, including the citizen. There has not been a significant impact on world affairs by nuclear weapons since world war2. Having a nuclear bomb does not guarantee the better life of the citizen, and development of the country. For these reasons, the nuclear weapons should be banned in entire world.

The Goa Honeymoon Tour Why This Trip - 763 Words

Adoring Goa Honeymoon Tour Why this trip? In the Goa honeymoon package for 5 days, couples are treated exclusively to enjoy moments in stunningly excellent environment. Relish delectable Goan food, calming stay, and interesting sightseeing opportunities in North Goa and South Goa. Both the areas house ancient structures, sacred places, rich greenery, and delightful beaches. Invest some time in detachment, while wandering on these spots with your beloved. Itinerary Day 1 :Welcome to Goa Arrival at Goa. Arrival Greet and Meet by our tour representative. Transfer to the resort. Check in with the resort. Spend the first day of your romantic trip at leisure, watch mesmeric sunset, have long walks in the nearby area and beaches. Enjoy some shopping at nearby flea markets. Overnight stay at Resort. Day 2 : North Goa sightseeing Appreciate delicious breakfast at the lodging before starting your day of going by principle attractions of North Goa. Kickstart the touring spree with the chronicled Aguada Fort. Remaining on a ridge, the post was built in 1612 and was the most prized and important stronghold to the Portuguese. It was named Aguada that implies water in Portuguese. The nearness of three freshwater springs inside legitimize this name. A 4 story Portuguese beacon remains inside, which is the most seasoned of its kind in Asia. Proceed to a Calangute Beach visit. The biggest in North Goa, this beach is biggest beach for vacationers due to exciting activities it offers.