selections from The Second Treatise of Government (1690) Dr. Charles Ess Philosophy and Religion Department Drury University As we will examine it, a defining theme of the American experience from Thomas Jefferson through Elizabeth Cady Stanton to Martin Luther King, Jr. is democratic revolution: these and other major figures seek to change the existing social structure, in order to expand the circle of democracy – to encompass ever larger groups of people within a democratic framework which recognizes the basic equality and rights of each member. Using Jefferson as the starting point, the circle of democratic rights initially includes white males over the age of 41 who meet certain property requirements. Elizabeth Cady Stanton seeks to enlarge this circle to include women – as Martin Luther King, Jr., seeks to enlarge the circle to include people of color. How do you argue for revolutionary change? The American experience is striking not only for its theme of revolutionary change: more fundamentally, these diverse calls for revolution all rest on a shared, central argument.
This argument begins from certain premises, and uses those premises to support a specific conclusion – the conclusion that democratic revolution, radical social change in the direction of increasing equality with regard to rights and standing before the law, is justified. The shared argument looks like this: [P1] Governments (Jefferson, Cady Stanton) and laws (Martin Luther King, Jr.) are legitimate only if they rest on the consent of the governed and protect basic rights. [P2] If governments and laws lack this consent, and/or fail to protect these rights, then [C1] such governments are no longer legitimate, and/or such laws are unjust. [P3] Illegitimate governments and/or unjust laws require no allegiance. Therefore, [C2] Illegitimate governments and/or unjust laws must be dissolved and replaced with legitimate governments and/or just laws i.e., governments and/or laws which rest on the consent of the governed and protect basic rights (i.e., which meet the conditions of [P1]).
The Research paper on Impact of Government Law on Edible Oil
Keywords- Edible oil, Supply Bangladesh, Strategic, Tactical. Chain, Government Law, #1 1. Introduction A supply chain consists of all parties involved, directly or indirectly, in fulfilling a customer request. The supply chain not only includes the manufacturer and suppliers, but also transporters, warehouses, retailers, and customers themselves. Within each organization, such as manufacturer, ...
While Jefferson first articulates this argument as the central justification for the American Revolution, we will see this argument used to support the struggle for women’s suffrage (Cady Stanton) and the struggle for civil rights for American blacks (Martin Luther King, Jr.).
But Jefferson did not invent this argument or its underlying assumptions. Among other sources, Jefferson was deeply influenced by Locke’s views on human nature and the political arrangements befitting that nature – especially as Locke articulated his political philosophy in Two Treatistes of Government (1690).
(Locke, for his part, helped shape the constitution of the colony of Carolina through his close association with Lord Ashley, earl of Shaftesbury.) As you can begin to see by contrasting this reading with Jefferson, the American democratic/revolutionary argument – the tradition that reaches from Jefferson through Martin Luther King, Jr. -is in fact rooted in the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Some of Locke’s key ideas and arguments are developed in our readings from The Second Treatise of Government. To understand the importance of Locke’s argument for democratic revolution and social change, we can go back to the first premise (P1) of the argument outlined above, and ask, ‘Why is the consent of the governed so fundamental – so fundamental that governments and laws lacking the consent of the governed are illegitimate and must not be obeyed?’ If we cannot answer this question, we have no reason to accept the first premise of the argument – and so opponents to the argument can dismiss it as weak, since it rests on an unsupported first premise.
The Essay on Relationship Between Human Beings And Nature
Now is the time for human beings and nature to collaborate. Normally, most people would say, “human beings always destroy nature.” It is true. However, only a few people know the truth of why human beings destroy nature. It is a huge mistake to think of nature individually. First of all, the main reason people destroy nature is to use trees as materials for paper. As everybody knows, cutting trees ...
Locke’s way of answering this question involves: 1) a basic definition of human nature: for Locke, human beings are driven by both emotions and reason, and they are both self-interested and naturally social or altruistic (‘other-interested’).
This conception contrasts sharply with the views of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679).
Hobbes argued that human beings are centrally desire-driven and solely self-interested. This view of human nature, we will see, leads to a very different conception from Locke’s of what political arrangements are appropriate for human beings. 2) Given Locke’s conception of human nature, we are further capable of self-rule – that is, especially through the facility of reason, Locke will argue, individuals can be (largely) trusted to manage their own affairs in ways that are (more or less) consistent with the interests and well-being of others. This conception of human nature as capable of self-rule is crucial to the democratic argument.
If Hobbes is right – if human beings are primarily self-interested and desire-driven – we are not capable of self-rule. On the contrary: our ruthless competition with one another to satisfy individual desires will quickly lead to what Hobbes calls ‘the war of each against all,’ a ‘state of nature’ in which life is ‘nasty, brutish, and short.’ Such chaotic and uncertain conditions, he goes on to argue, will lead us to happily give up the sort of freedom from society and its laws which we enjoy in the state of nature: on Hobbes’ view, we would rather live under an authoritarian monarch who holds all political power, for the sake of achieving a measure of social order. In short, Hobbes’ conception of human nature leads us to an either/or: either we enjoy freedom from society and its laws – resulting in chaos; or we give up this freedom for an authoritarian regime – and enjoy a social order established by force. By contrast, if Locke is right – if human beings are naturally rational. social, and thus capable of self-rule – then we don’t need an authoritarian regime to save us from ourselves. On the contrary, as capable of self-rule, we are rather suited to establish and participate in democratic modes of government – i.e., modes of government which rest upon the consent of the governed.
The Essay on Was America A Free Society In The 1920s
Was America really a free society in the 1920's? Freedom covers many aspects of life : human rights, religious freedom, economic freedom, freedom of expression and political freedom. In America in the 1920's there was an illusion of freedom - but some people were more free than others and this depended on race, social class and political belief. There was a big divide between rich and poor and ...
3) But this argument for the legitimacy of democratic (in contrast with authoritarian) government also depends, lastly, upon a careful understanding of human freedom – and with it, the role of law in preserving human freedom. Again, we need to understand Hobbes’ view before we make sense of Locke’s view. For Hobbes, given his conception of human beings as essentially interested in fulfilling their own desires, freedom means primarily freedom from constraints. That is, if my primary purpose in life is to fulfill my desires, then I experience anything that gets in the way of that fulfillment as a constraint or limitation. On this view, any effort to limit or channel my pursuit of self-interest – whether it be the objections and resistance of others whom I seek to use for my own purposes, or the more formal limits on behavior expressed in community habits, expectations, and laws – are simply obstacles in my quest to do precisely what I want to do. So, in order to fulfill my desires most fully – I want to be free from as many constraints as possible. Philosophers call this conception negative freedom.
But for several reasons, this conception of freedom is seen to be incomplete, if not self-defeating. A first objection runs like this: if I achieve perfect negative freedom – freedom from all constraints – I still have no positive motive or conception of what to do, except insofar as I am driven by desire. But is to be driven by desire to be ‘free’ – or is it simply to become a slave to my desires? (This objection is as old as Plato and the Stoics: it is expressed in important ways in the modern period by Jean-Jacques Rousseau [1712-1788].) Moreover, it is unclear that emphasizing negative freedom alone will in fact result in freedom from society. Consider the example of the 1960’s hippie male, who wants to be free from social constraints. If society dictates that males wear short hair – to be free from society, the hippie male will wear long hair. If society dictates that smoking marijuana is forbidden, the hippie male will be free from society by smoking marijuana.
The Term Paper on Common Sense Freedom Free Statement
Assignment: Comment on the Following Statements 1) Out of the people edited in Abel or discussed by Palmer, the following are hard determinists... Well, Palmer only discusses two hard determinists: B. F. Skinner, and Sigmund Freud. Out of the texts read in Abel, Abel discusses Skinner and D'Holbach as hard determinists. 2) Hard determinism conflicts with some of our ordinary beliefs and ...
The paradox of this sort of freedom is: despite the insistence on being free from social rules and constraints – society still controls the individual, insofar as the individual, using only negative freedom, can only reacting negatively to whatever society endorses. For Locke, by contrast, our reason is crucial precisely as it is able to determine for us appropriate goals or ends – goals or ends which we then seek to achieve by establishing whatever rules or regular behaviors are necessary for the sake of accomplishing those goals. Philosophers call this conception of freedom positive freedom – freedom that is capable of positively determining what human beings, both individually and collectively, are to do. On this view, we are free as (a) we are free to choose our own ends and goals, and thereby as (b) we are free to choose the rules or means by which we can achieve those goals. On this view, freedom is achieved or realized in part as we determine our own rules In other words, rules are not an obstacle to freedom (as they are for the Hobbesian); rather, they are an important means to freedom. For example: a person who has chosen the goal of becoming an excellent athlete, musician, or dancer quickly learns that to achieve this goal requires considerable work and self-discipline.
Think of a ballet or jazz ….
