Social contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit, on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well. Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism: We are all self-interested. Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests. We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order. Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules. Hobbes looked to the past to observe a primitive “State of Nature” in which there is no such thing as morality, and that this self-interested human nature was "nasty, brutish, and short" – a kind of perpetual state of warfare. Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task, citizens have the right – and sometimes the duty – to withdraw their support and even to rebel. Locke addressed Hobbes's claim that the state of nature was the state of war, though he attribute this claim to "some men" not to Hobbes. He refuted it by pointing to existing and real historical examples of people in a state of nature. For this purpose he regarded any people who are not subject to a common judge to resolve disputes, people who may legitimately take action themselves to punish wrong doers, as in a state of nature. Initial Post Instructions For the initial post, address the following: Which philosophy do you espouse? How much authority should be granted to governments (e.g., the right to kill (death penalty/capital punishment/use of deadly force)? How much would you give up in return for safety? If you side with Hobbes, do you support at any point recourse if the government violates its own contract (if so, you probably have a bit of Locke in your thinking)?
I am of the opinion that Locke's proposal or argument is more valid and practical. To my mind, Hobbes's idea is somewhat akin to Anarchism and so impractical and unideal.
Governments can have complete authority in making and amending laws and statutes. It is the duty of the government to respect and protect individual citizen's rights and maintain the rule of law in the land. To attain this sometimes governments need to take punitive/ corrective actions on the wrongdoers to protect the wronged and to ensure that the wrong and unjust activities of individuals and organizations are not repeated and went unpunished. As the government should punish the corrupt and criminals it shall have the authority to punish, jail and kill them within the purview of a vibrant judiciary. So, the government shall have the right to kill as a part of the legal process if the crime is proven in a court of law and the same crime is a serious offense that deserves a death penalty under the existing law. In my view, government can also have the right to use deadly force depending on the situation. For example, it is justified to use deadly force on criminal drug mafia in order to crush them, but, use of force must not be applied to civilians who are peacefully protesting against the government's policies.
In return for safety, I have no problem with government spending a huge amount of public funds on defense and policing which otherwise can be used to fund health care. I am also willing to compromise (to a certain extent) on privacy to improve safety and security in society.
Social contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should...
Hobbes runs the logic like this in the form of a logical syllogism: We are all self-interested. Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests. We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order. Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules. Locke disagreed, and set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When governments fail in that task,...
Question: What does Hobbes suggest is the reason we have government at all? How does Locke’s view of the need for government differ? Using these sources: From Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan book 1, chapter 13 So that in the nature of man, we find three principal causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first maketh men invade for gain; the second, for safety; and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves masters of other...
Please read the article and answer about questions. You and the Law Business and law are inseparable. For B-Money, the two predictably merged when he was negotiat- ing a deal for his tracks. At other times, the merger is unpredictable, like when your business faces an unexpected auto accident, product recall, or government regulation change. In either type of situation, when business owners know the law, they can better protect themselves and sometimes even avoid the problems completely. This chapter...