Tuesday, April 30, 2013

What’s Government For Anyway? Political Theory in the Enlightenment Era



After deciphering quotes from each philosopher contribute to our blog discussion based on your assigned question. Remember, speak to each other as you blog and try not to be repetitive. Think: What can you say to move the conversation along? Use quotes or your own paraphrasing to support your comment (100-200 words).

1)    Judging by their ideas, how much faith do Hobbes and Locke have in regular people? How does this dictate their opinions on government?
2)    With which philosopher do you agree with -- Hobbes or Locke? Why?
3)    Why is balancing individual freedoms with the safety of a larger group difficult?
4)    What is the best form of government to ensure that a person’s right to life, liberty, and property is being protected?  Explain. 
5)    Extension Activity: Create a political cartoon supporting either Hobbes or Locke by using satire to criticize an aspect of society that you believe needs to be changed. 

2 comments:

Natalie said...

1)Locke felt that humans were generally good and tolerant of each other. The ruling class os only there to administer justice.Hobbes thought that people were generally violent and acted off of self interest. A ruler according to him should be strong and hold a strong morel code to the people. If Hobbes' believes that people are generally violent than the government should be strong and be able to administer punishment to those who break the laws. Lock's ideas pointed that people were generally good but needed only a government which would watch over the people and administer justice.
2) I personally believe Hobbs. Humans are very animalistic and will always act according to self preservation. Humans are naturally violent and need laws and rules to curb our violent and selfish tendencies. Laws give us a reason not to act out and actually keep us safe from things like ridicule and scorn thus keeping us out of trouble.
3)Keeping balance within a large group and individual freedoms is hard because people don't automatically think of others they think of themselves and what can benefit themselves, if we only protected these individuals than people would could have more power over others and with the amount of individual freedom their would nothing people would or could do to help others. If we only focused on the freedom of a larger group we would loose individually and no matter what people would stand out thus limiting their individual freedom.
4)Communism in theory would be the best with all people being equal but because humans are generally selfish and unable to think about others before they think of themselves it has never worked out too well with the rise of dictators and military dictatorships. I think after Communism the best system that could be emulated would be the system used in Switzerland where the state has more power over the overall government. The government itself just keeps Switzerland neutral while the people of the states have direct control over what goes on.

Catherine said...

2.) I would agree with Hobbes’ starting idea that humans are naturally selfish and conceited. Similar in the novel the Lord of the Flies, once humans are left stranded on an island without guidance, their natural nature (savagery) will show. The only concern I have with Hobbes’ idea is that it eventually creates a hierarchy. An absolute ruler would command the people in which is hypocritical if the original idea was that all human beings are selfish and conceited. Though I believe in his initial idea, the way the idea is executed seems contradicting. It comes to a point where in his book unity is depicted as half of a person, not the whole human being.