88%(24)88% au considerat acest document util (24 voturi)
49K vizualizări2 pagini
The document discusses Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's views on the state of nature and social contract theory. Hobbes saw the state of nature as a state of war where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Locke believed the state of nature was not necessarily bad, and that people are born free and equal with natural rights. Rousseau saw the state of nature as one without laws or morality, but with potential for goodness. They all argued that people form social contracts and governments to escape the state of nature, but differed on people's natural state and the government formed.
Descriere originală:
a comparison grid among philosophers hobbes, locke and rousseau
The document discusses Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's views on the state of nature and social contract theory. Hobbes saw the state of nature as a state of war where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Locke believed the state of nature was not necessarily bad, and that people are born free and equal with natural rights. Rousseau saw the state of nature as one without laws or morality, but with potential for goodness. They all argued that people form social contracts and governments to escape the state of nature, but differed on people's natural state and the government formed.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
88%(24)88% au considerat acest document util (24 voturi)
49K vizualizări2 pagini
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau Comparison Grid
Încărcat de
d-fbuser-36727469
The document discusses Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's views on the state of nature and social contract theory. Hobbes saw the state of nature as a state of war where life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. Locke believed the state of nature was not necessarily bad, and that people are born free and equal with natural rights. Rousseau saw the state of nature as one without laws or morality, but with potential for goodness. They all argued that people form social contracts and governments to escape the state of nature, but differed on people's natural state and the government formed.
Drepturi de autor:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formate disponibile
Descărcați ca DOCX, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
Is NOT equal to a state of war A primitive condition without law or morality Like a state of war (not necessarily fighting but the It is actually chaotic but neither it is good nor bad “uncorrupted moral” prevails inclination to fight and take pre-emptive measures People are equal and free to do whatever they want Mean are ignorant and innocent against each other) STATE OF but are bound by the law of nature Men are free and equal “The condition of man... is a condition of war of People have stronger moral limits Men are born with the potential of goodness NATURE everyone against everyone” When there is no government Men are just like any other animals People think of their own interests over others’ “want [lack] of a common judge, with authority, puts People don’t interact much but Interaction and No morality all persons in a state of nature” competition are unavoidable Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short life When there is no government When there is no government fundamental law of nature is that as much as Natural law is morality Man may do whatever he sees fit to protect his interests, possible mankind is to be preserved Morality is preservation of self without causing harm especially his life men are free and equal LAW OF “A man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that Single absolute law regardless of where people live to others Morality is a natural repugnance at seeing other NATURE assault him by force, to take away his life.” (applies to all) humans suffer Men are equal Can be discovered by reason alone Rousseau does not agree of causing pain to others in Different from divine law order to preserve oneself.
Right to life (to live); to liberty (to do anything they
Right to life/ preservation of life want with respect to the right of others to life); to whatever you need to survive is good but as musch Right of a person to everything RIGHT OF Right of a person to do whatever is necessary to property (to own all they create or acquire with as possible, not in the extent of harming others respect to others’ life and liberty rights) Natural rights are on the principles of pity and self- NATURE preserve his interests, especially his life All people have natural rights preservation Right to equality These are privileges or claims to which people are These rights make men unequal entitled
Persons collectively agree to give up all their freedom
Social contract is made among all people of that and power to a sovereign (ruler) society to bring them in harmony “That a man be willing, when others are so too, as far Governments exist by of the consent of people to A general will is made, and agreed by the people to forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it protect their natural rights and promote public good abide by it SOCIAL necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be The right of revolution is exercised when the “Each of us puts his person and all his power in contented with so much liberty against other men, as he government fails (people may rebel to redress the CONTRAC common under the supreme direction of the general would allow other men against himself. “ government) T Absolute control (authoritarian monarchy) where all There is the principle of the rule of majority where will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” powers and laws are by that sovereign things are decided by the greater public (liberal Direct rule by the people (republicanism/democracy) Government imposes laws and order to prevent the monarchy) “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be state of war compelled to do so by the whole body.” MARIANO, KEITH RICHARD D. 2010-78830, BA JOURNALISM 6 October 2010
National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local Lodge No. 338, Afl-Cio, 409 F.2d 922, 10th Cir. (1969)