Phil 102 Locke and Rousseau

Phil 102 Locke and Rousseau - Faihan Alqahtani Phil 102...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Faihan Alqahtani Phil 102 4/07/09 Beardsworth Locke and Rousseau John Locke defines the state of nature as a state in which all individuals are both equal and free. Also, he feels that there is great harmony and cooperation between those individuals. However, Locke also believes that individuals in this state are filled with insecurities about their rights being exposed to violation by others. Those rights that cause insecurities to individuals include the right to enforce the law of nature, the right to punish the people who injure their own life, liberty, or property, the right to not be ruled by governmental power of any kind except the laws that have previously been formed by the consent of all, the right to not be subjected to the unlawful power other individuals possess to protect their own life, liberty, or property, and the right to be compensated if any other individual causes injury to another individuals own life, liberty, or property. Lastly, Locke describes certain obligations of every human and that is to preserve the rest of mankind execute the law of nature, and finally, engage and take part in self preservation. The state of war that John Locke describes differs from the state of nature in that it is a state that is filled with hate and destruction. Also, he explains that the state of war is when “Force, or a declared design of force upon the person or another, where there is no common superior on Earth to appeal to for relief” (Locke 280). Locke continues to depict that the differences between the state of nature and the state of war “are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction are from one another” (Locke 280). It is demonstrated that a state of war can end in the state of nature only if there is an authority or power in Earth, “from which relief can be had by appeal” (Locke 282). This power has the authority to decide for the two opposing sides what is just and right instead of just allowing the opposing sides decide for themselves what they
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
think the outcome of their issue should be. If the authority has the power to make that decision a state of war will be eliminated, but if there is no authority to appeal to, a state of war will most likely proceed from the two opposing sides. As before stated, John Locke’s idea of the state of nature includes harmony, peace, and cooperation between individuals, whereas, Hobbes’ perspective on the state of nature is quite a different view. He feels that the state of nature is identical to that of the state of war and that the state of nature is filled with conflict and discord between individuals. Personally, I believe that both Locke’s and Hobbes’ standpoints are correct statements and descriptions about the state of nature. I feel that the state of nature includes a more stable environment that is harmonious but in order to obtain that state, there is a lot of work and cooperation needed to get there. To explain, I
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

Phil 102 Locke and Rousseau - Faihan Alqahtani Phil 102...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online