Friday, September 5, 2008
Lesson 1 - Life in a State of Nature Q1
How did John Locke use the idea of "state of nature" to try to establish or figure out what the purpose of government should be? If all people are not equal in intelligence, character or status (physical, material wealth, life experiences), is it unjust for EVERYONE to have the exact same rights? ANY exceptions??! Defend your answers; challenge others!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
John Locke used the idea of "state of nature" to attempt to figure out what the purpose of government should be by making everyone take a step back and view the government in another way. He showed that the government is a type of a backup plan when things need to be kept under control rather than certain people telling you how life should be. In his beliefs, he made others consider what the real purpose of a government is by making them consider what would happen if there was no government. He made them think about if there was no government, what would occur to make a government neccessary? And those things that occured that made a government neccessary would show the purpose of having a government. I believe that just because one is not equal in intelligence, character, or status, that does not mean they don't deserve the same rights as anyone else. Their rights are natural rights, all people deserve them no matter who they are. John Locke had similar beliefes in that he did not accept the ideas like "divine right" for Kings and such, he believed all people deserved the same natural rights.
John Locke used "statue of Nature" as a way of
showing people what they deserve in a government,
but not only what they deserved, but what they
need to demand of their government. I think John
Locke felt that the people deserved their natural
rights protected by their government. i agree
with freejack that ALL PEOPLE reguardless of
intelligence, charachter, or most of all status of any kind,
should have equal rights. i believe that we are
all equals reguardless of sex or race. i believe
in one exception, and that is that if you kill
another human, no matter gender or ethnicity, and
you are found guilty without a reasonable doubt,
then you no longer have the right to life, and
you should be put to death.
I agree with almost everything they said except that everyone is equal. Everyone has the same natural rights, but not everyone gets to directly participate in the government, even in a democracy like ours. In order for there to be a government, there must be those who have power over everyone in the society as part of the social contract. If some people have the right to make decisions that others don't, then they are not equal and can never be equal so long as there is a government in place.
Locke used the idea of "state of nature" to give a base to his principles. Maybe just to simplify things a little bit. "Hey, we're all just creatures here just trying to live out our lives peacefully. Unfortunately we are complicated creatures who need to be organized or things get chaotic, so we need to come to an agreement on some rules." I think everyone is equal in a sense that everyone has their own gifts. Some may be very good at math, others are better at language. It all seems to balance out. So yes, I do believe everyone has fair game to equal rights, so long as they pull their own load. There should be consequences for those who don't do that.
i agree with the both of you, if i am interpreting what you are saying correctly. i feel as though everyone has the same natural rights and should be treated as equals, no matter what. however, it is up to them whether or not they do things that make them above or below others in equality. just as a criminal no longer has the right to be a free man, he must sit in a jail cell because he committed a crime. and a man who does something positive with the natural rights he is given gets to drive around in a porsche.
John Locke used the "state of nature" to prove a point that everyone is created equal, but we still need organization in order to protect our rights. If there was no government whatsoever then the world would be a very unstable environment. There would be no assurance that our natural rights were protected. This "state of nature" proves that people need a government in order to be certain that their natural rights will be respected. Everyone is entitled to their natural rights no matter how smart they are or what kinds of things they do. If someone is not contributing to society then it's possible he could become poor and lose his property, but it was his decision and no one else's. It may seem like the government is above everyone else, but they were not made that way. A person in power got there either by the consent of the whole or the consent of the majority. The elected people still have the same rights as everybody, but they might have a bit more power, and with this power comes more responsibility.
Well first of all I think that slappy o'hoolahan should know that John Locke's idea was of the "state of nature" not the "statue of nature"; that would have to be like a golden tree or something :). Anyway, I think we can all agree that this imaginary life with no government was a great way to find out the purpose, qualities, and responsibilities of an ideal government. The government is there to protect our natural rights, yet this brings on another question: does everyone deserve to be protected in the same ways? When we're born, we are born with a will to survive, to be free in our decisions, and eager to work and provide for our necessities. In this way we are all created equal. But, as life plays out each person's free will causes them to make different choices. Depending on a person's choices, some may become more intelligent, more physically built, or have more material wealth. Like freejack mick yeager said in his second comment that "it is up to them whether or not they do things that make them above or below others in equality".
I belive that all people do deserve the same natural rights and the same protection by the government until they, by their own actions, unlawfully put someone else's life, liberty, or property in jeopardy. They have now chosen a criminal life and by doing so no longer deserve the exact same rights as citizens abiding by their government's law. A loyal citizen gives their consent to obey their government and in result gains protection over their natural rights.
John Locke used the idea of "State Of Nature" to figure out the best way for a government to be run to ensure that the majority of people are happy with it. He basically said "what makes people unhappy" and then narrowed it down to three things, which became the natural rights. The nhe used these to say "how can we protect these rights?" and thus, here is his idea of government. I defintily do NOT believe that it is unjust for all people to have the same rights. We are all the same, and it would be hypocritical to say "Yea, we believe in the natural rights, BUT BTW, THIS CERTIAN GROUP IS MORE/LESS IMOPORTANT THAN OTHERS." It just doesnt go. I think we are all created equal and we all should share similar responsibilities. We all serve to not be discriminated agaisnt, FOR ANY REASON. Not our age, sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, flavour of god, favorite ice cream, looks, strength, or intelligence should determine how we get treated by others.
Just for the record, I thought about this question all day after I responded. Theres just so much to think about.
and yes, i agree. mr kimball certainly gave us some very complicated questions.
Having a "state of nature", with no government wouldn't be a good thing. Without government everybody's rights wouldn't be protected and certain people would have their rights taken away.
All people should have the same rights as anyone else regardless, of age, race or anything else. If everyone is obeying the law and not causing harm to others then they deserve their rights. If a person is committing crime and harming others they should have their rights taken away.
John Locke used the idea of "state of nature", or the hypothetical condition of people living together in a society without government to try and find what was necessary in order for a government to work. We all know there is problems with all the governments that exist today, the question we must answer is why? what are the specific problems, and how can they be resolved? John Locke wanted to get rid of any problems in the government before it was even created. He imagined what life would be like without any government at all, and considered what would improve and what would not.
All people are created equal. It's in our constitution, therefore, it doesnt matter how much intelligence you have, or what your status is, because everyone deserves the same rights. Just because someone was born into a rich family doesn't mean they should get more rights than someone who was born poor. The only possible exception i can think of is criminals. They are born with the same rights we all have, and they misused them so it would not be unjust to modify their rights, since they took advantage of having them. But thats just my very long opinion.^-^
Typo's happen leave Slappy alone about that. Locke's use of "state of nature" was used to look at how human react to each other when they are uncontrolled by others. By thinking about human interactions, Locke could better apreciate the way people would respond to certain senarioes a government would inevitably face, thus allowing him to evaluate how a government should be structured to meet the expectations of the people. Women are not equal to men and I personally believe that women should not be able to hold major offices of power. Women are crazy and hormonal, and I am allowed to say that because I am one. Imagine if we had a chick president and she was menopausal. She'd be all over the place emotionally. Besides having major governmental power, I think women should be allowed to have the same rights as men. I do not think that all people in this country (over the age of 18) should be allowed to vote. I believe that some voters are so uninformed that they should, in no way, have a say about what happens in this country. There should be some kind of test and if you fail the test you lose your right to vote, untill the next year when you are eligible again to take the test. This test should be availible to people of all ages, not just adults. I believe that many of my classmates are more qualified to vote than an uninformed adult. Besides those two exceptions, people should have equal rights. Sorry ladies!
Alot of people are talking about taking rights away from those who commit crime or murder fellow human beings, and I cant help but ask, who has the right to take away their rights? If someone stole my car tomorrow, would I then have the right to steal their car and thus deprive them of their rights? If I were to be murdered tonight, would my friends and family have the right to revenge?
By seeking revenge would they not be violating a social contract?
Is punishment not just as bad as the initial act?
I feel that not all people deserve the same rights, I think that ignorant people who have no desire to educate themselves have less rights than some one who does their best to learn about their surroundings and learn about the world. Biggots who dislike people because of social status, race, sex/sexual preference etc... deserve less rights than someone who does their best to appreciate some for what they do with their life does. If some one is dwelling parasitically one the fringes of society and feeding off of the work of others they deserve less rights than a hard working "backbone of society" type person.
But of course, who am I to take away anothers rights?
johnny you make a good point about taking away criminal's rights, but its kind of similar to capital punishment if you think about it. Doesn't the state take away a convicted felon's right to live? People opposed to capital punishment have a similar view to yours, who are we to take away their rights?...Just wanted to point that out :)
A "state of nature" refers to a condition in which there is no government. John Jocke used this idea in order to try to figure out the actual purpose of a government. He tried to discover answers for how a government should be organized and whether or not someone has the right to govern another. He discovered that there are three rights that all people are entitled to. They are the right of life, liberty, and property. These "natural rights" are defendable by anyone and can not be taken away. If all people are not equal in intelligence, character, or status, it is NOT unjust for everyone to have the same exact rights, because, under God's eye's, all men are created equal, and should all have the same rights. No matter your age, sex, race, ethnicity or religion, everyone should be entitled the same rights. They should also have to obey the same laws, and edure the same punishments for their crimes. There should be no exceptions.
I think John Locke attempted to step out of the box and look at the world from a neutral 3rd person. I don't think John Locke thought he was better or worse than anyone else. When he speaks of "state of nature" he is speaking of all including himself and the very rich and the very poor. However, he was aware of the short amount of time it would take for the people to create complete chaos. Though this is what he wanted to prove; that without some sort of order within the states the people would create chaos. I don't think Locke meant to prove that humans could interact and communicate perfectly fine without any order because he knew that may be impossible. He just wanted to show that order should be taken to a smaller, more just level; not take it to a level of rulership or absolute control.
The concept of a "state of nature" is where one simply lives without a government and witnesses the occurences that are bound to happen. Without a government one can observe what is weak in a society and base a government around it. The "state of nature" plan lets one see how a government either truely aids a republic of cruely hurts one. I beleive that based soley on the fact that eveyone is human that everyone should be given that same rights, regardless of their intelligence, character, or status. Yet one has the own options of jeapordizing ones rights. Breaking laws and endangering others automatically takes rights away. We are all born with the same rights its just depends on how one lives with the honor of having those rights.
Ahoy! Focus yer comments on the original questions, you scurrvy dogs! Yer Admiral is gettin a headache!
John Locke used the state of nature to show people what life could be like without government. He showed the purpose of government and what would happen if life was lived in a state of nature. It is not unjust for all people to have equal rights. The only exceptions should be those who have committed many illegal and criminal activities. If life was lived in a state of nature nobody would have any rights and those who were criminals would be on the loose and committing more crimes because there would be no one there to stop them.
John Locke used the idea of the "state of nature" to attempt to answer the question of what the aims of a good government should be. When difficult tasks, such as building a good government from scratch, are broken down it's easier to see how they should be "built". Once Locke figured out that, in its simplest form, a government should protect people's natural rights (life, liberty and property), he was able to move on to the next question of how a government would protect those rights justly. Every person has those three natural rights that Locke described and everyone should be entitled to those rights no matter if they are stupid, exceptionally intelligent, powerful or weak.
John Locke used the idea of "state of nature" to discover and show the people what government is, the reason behind having a government along with other questions that made them think of the government. While taking a look at government, he brought up never before thought about ideas such as what would happen if there was not government? and what kind of government would be created if there wasn't already one in place? It doesn't matter how intelligent someone is or their status, everyone was given the same natural rights, therefore all deserve them.
John Locke's "state of nature" idea is all well and good, but instead of stepping back like freejack mick yeager says, it might be more wise to continue on with daily activity, and where need rises for authority and intervention, it can be filled. By doing this, the government that emerges will be individualized to the community in which it is established.
One thing I have noticed is that most people do not challenge Slappy O'Hoolahan's statement, "ALL PEOPLE reguardless of intelligence, charachter, or most of all status of any kind,
should have equal rights." I find this rather interesting; not all people are equal, and not all people should be treated as such. For example, one person's situation should never be treated the same as another's, because no two people are the same. This is the reason we have individual trials, instead of group trials. What if one person in this "state of nature" had a different mental status than the rest? Would that be a problem if the government imposed the same rules on everyone? Yes, it would be.
To answer the origional question more fully, John Locke used the idea of "state of nature" as a sort of social experiment, in order to make an educated guess on the reactions of the populace to certain types of governments, as well as which governments would rise on their own. Even though the rights of life, liberty, and property should not be compromised, some other rights need to be based on the person's unique situation, as stated before.
Working off of a few people here...I think Locke's main purpose for using the "state of nature" and relating it to building a government was to really get all of the necessities out of what we, as natural beings [originally, anyway], need to conduct ourselves efficiently. After seeing failed governments all over the place, creating a new one was a big job and they wanted it to last more than just their lifetime. So in order for everything needed to be included, but not too many regulations, he had to simplify it at much as possible. And what better way to do that than asking what we would have needed just on our own to survive and prosper?
I think even though intelligence, character & status are not equal between people, everyone has their own personal rights that cannot be compromised. Some may go farther because of those differences, making them better in a specific sense, but no one can earn more rights because they are smarter.
The "state of nature" that John Locke speaks of is a sort of clean slate; there is NO government, but there's a community of sorts in this imagined state. What's left for each individual, when there's no government to say or do anything about it, and such? It's the right to their own life, liberty, and property, decided Locke. This helped determine just what people were looking for in a government, and to help initially build it from the ground up as seen fit. Simply taking another government and replacing a small bit of it was not suitable here; a fresh start and outlook were needed.
Since no two people are just alike "in intelligence, character or status", it's difficult to talk about equal rights. We all start the same way, basically, but we all end up different. I suppose if we're all born with equal rights, that shouldn't change, right? No one decides that we're all born with equal rights, but I don't see why any randomly selected number of babies shouldn't each have the equal rights to succeed, help run the country, generally follow their calling in life, etc. If that calling is to kill, er, well...I believe in other outlets. I'm not all that comfortable personally saying who should and shouldn't have the same rights. If, let's say, equivalent rights are NOT acceptable, then I feel rights should not be set in stone but rather quite flexible. I hope that makes sense.
John Locke used the "state of nature" idea to conclude upon the fact that everyone had the right to life, liberty and property, no matter what you believe in. People want life in the sense that nobody really want to die, and that they want to feel safe inside a community. People want liberty because nobody wants to be told what they should do, how to do it, and so on. People want property in the sense that nobody should have the right to take something you worked hard for away from you.
Locke considered that no two people are going to be exactly the same in terms of intelligence and strength, so it would be hard to say that every one has equal rights. Everybody starts out with the same amount of rights as everybody else at day 1, and nobody had the power to deprive them of you.
It's true what many say that vigilantism is not the way to go about seeking justice. Justice is something that is figured out by the social contract or what most people believe is justice. Many believe that violence is not the answer but non-violent punishment such as sentences. It's true that all people are not created equal. Some are born without having money, without the chance to an education, and without good role models just to name a few. These things can be changed though. In America we have the opportunity to do whatever we want to do. To have something though means having to working for it. Many people don't want to work hard for there things.These are the people who should not given the same rights as those working hard 24/7. It's the people who want to better our country as a whole who are the ones who should be looked up to and made role models. Some of us are born without as much intellect as others. These people should still be given rights but just not as many rights as others. These people should learn from the more gifted and strive to be more like them. Government helps all people get on the same page and to set an example for the less fortunate. So basically not everyone is born equal but can become equal with hard work over time.
It is not unjust for everyone to have the same rights. "All men are created equal". John Locke wanted to see what would happen if he looked at the government from a different point of view. Realizing the government is there for the protection of the people.
Post a Comment