| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "LOCKE HOBBES ETHICS MORALITY": |
|
|
Locke and Hobbes: Ethics and Morality, 2005.
Compares the views of political philosophers Thomas Locke and John Hobbes on ethics and morality.
2,589 words (approx. 10.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 78.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The Enlightenment was a time when man, stepping out of his shackles, began to use his rational facilities to pull himself out of the medieval pits of mysticism and, in the process, shove aside the state and church authorities of the day. It was a spontaneous and defused movement, which fed upon itself and led to the great scientific discoveries from which we all benefit today. Beliefs in natural law and universal order developed, which not only promoted scientific findings and advancements of a material nature, but which also gave a scientific approach to political and social issues. Foremost among the Enlightenment ranks were John Locke (1632-1704) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). This paper examines their view on ethics and morality, focusing on their treatments of the following concepts: state of nature, social compact, and role of the government.
From the Paper
"The moral philosopher instead will explain what makes an act right or a person virtuous. In discussing criteria of right action and virtuous character, the philosopher will try to try to show certain traits, such as honesty, generosity, and courage are worthy, and others, such as hypocrispy, selfishness, and cowardices are not. More generally, the moral philosopher seeks a clear and well-reasoned answer to the question: "What does it mean to be moral?" Both Locke and Hobbes attempt to answer this question in terms of what we, as responsible agents confronting wrong and right, ought to do. The emphasis is not becoming a virtuous individual, but, rather, on how people should act in relation to society and government."
| |
|
Locke is Hobbes in Sheep's Clothing, 2006.
An examination and comparison of the political philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom were social contract theorists.
1,575 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 1 source, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The British political philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes examined the structures of political and social order on the basis of first principles in attempting to discern the original basis of social contracts that comprise human society. This essay argues, through an examination of the political philosophies of both men, that Locke can validly be described as Hobbes in sheep's clothing given that his philosophy is fundamentally similar if less radical than that of Hobbes.
| |
|
Locke And Hobbes On Property - A Natural Right?, 2002.
This paper discusses property as discussed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It focuses mainly on the latter's views, but uses Hobbes as a point of comparison. In his "Two Treatises of Government" (1690), Locke sets forth a view that the state exists to preserve national rights of citizens. This was significant in his views on property, as we will see. Property is inherently the joining of the earth - which is common to all men - and the application of one's body - or his/her labor. The fruit of that union is considered property by Locke, who goes onto argue that property was, therefore, a natural right. Hobbes, on the other hand, argued that property was the effect of the commonwealth, which exists only through civil laws given by the sovereign. This essay will argue that Locke's account of the methods of and limits of property acquisition in the state of nature differ from those of Hobbes. Locke argued that property was a natural right; Hobbes did not.
| |
|
Locke and Hobbes, 2002.
A discussion of the citizen's obligation to die for the state as seen through the philosophy of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
2,050 words (approx. 8.2 pages), 3 sources, APA, $ 64.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The issue of obligation of the citizen to die for the state is examined here as seen in John Locke?s "Second Treatise of Government" and Thomas Hobbes? "Leviathan". The concepts involved such as limitations to the power of the state, obligations of a King, and the social contract entered into by citizens when they accept that the state governs them, are outlined and the arguments of the philosophers presented.
From the Paper
"The obligations of an individual within a state may be seen as relatively universal, the duty to abide by the laws, which are set by the legislative, with the authority of the community is one of the most widely accepted. However, there are other areas which are less clear and less defined. One of these is the obligation of life. It is widely agreed that the role of the state should be to safeguard the welfare of its citizens, however, the state will exercise its? power thought its officials, and ultimately through its? citizen, and here there need to be a balance. For example, should a citizen be obligated to die for the state? This may occur in many scenarios, for example in war. It is at this level we start to see consternation. There are many that would claim for an individual to give their life for the greater good, to protect a valued way of life is honourable, there are others that would look at it as an immoral imposition akin to murder; a betrayal of the individual by the state. This is a debate we may associate with the twentieth century and the two World Wars, however, the argument is not new, and the role of the state has been the subject of much political philosophical thought, especially John Locke and Thomas Hobbes."
| |
|
Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and the Right to Property, 2002.
This paper discusses Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and the right to property.
2,150 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 80.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In his Second Treatise of Government, John Locke provides his theory of private property and how it is connected to the rights of man. In his view, the right to property was one of the natural God-given rights.
| |
|
Liberalism: An Analysis of Locke, Hobbes, and Mill, 2006.
A review of liberalism as defined by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses ideas based upon the writings of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and John Stuart Mill, showing evidence that each of these political philosophers defined liberalism within the context of their broader views of human society and government. As a believer in autocratic monarchy, Hobbes had a negative view of liberalism. In contrast, John Locke supported liberal principles and believed that the people have an inherent right to govern themselves through representative government. John Stuart Mill generally agreed with Locke on the liberal merits of representative government, but believed that the rights of individuals were virtually unlimited.
| |
|
Locke, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau, 2002.
Compares the philosophies of John Locke, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
1,523 words (approx. 6.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 50.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The philosophies of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau encompass a spectrum of thought on how a state should be governed. This paper discusses how at one end is the cynicism of Machiavelli and, to some extent, Hobbes. Their ideas are countered by the democratic optimism of Locke and Rousseau. It shows how, at the heart of each of these essays is each philosopher?s assessment of the fundamental character of people and how much they can be trusted to govern themselves.
From the Paper
"Throughout The Prince moral codes seem irrelevant to the business of running a state. The survival of the sovereign is the highest priority. At times Machiavelli seems to be writing guidelines for tyrants. According to him, a prince is safer if he is feared rather than loved. It is easier, Machiavelli maintains, for people to offend, or betray, someone they love than someone they fear. How is that fear instilled? ?Fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.? ( Santoni 120 ).
In Leviathan , Hobbes, like Machiavelli, stresses the importance of a powerful sovereign, however his philosophy of government seems less tyrannical than that of Machiavelli. ?During the time when men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such a war as is of every man against every man.? (Santoni 143)."
| |
|
Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes, 2006.
An argument against the self-evident reality of democracy in Western civilization.
1,800 words (approx. 7.2 pages), 5 sources, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the historical evidence of democracy in America as a prime example of the philosophical treatises of Rousseau and Locke, and the supposed fruition of their cause. However, the ideology of a government that would rule for the great good of the people is not realistic, nor has been proven to self-evident. This paper provides examples of how Locke attempted to give more sovereignty for land to the lower classes and the inability of American elites to help evenly distribute the land for the greater good.
From the Paper
"In this political analysis of western civilization, the premise of democracy has been an arguably difficult subject to display as a self-evident form of government. In the many treaties written by such philosophers as John Locke and Hobbes, one can realize the problems associated with realistically governing through the will of the people. Although the United States Constitution reveals an eventual realization of the principles that Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes discuss in their ideas of government, democracy is not truly a self-evident form of governing."
| |
|
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, 1995.
Compares these political philosophers' views on social contract, individualism, reason, state of nature and property.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 6 sources, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"John Locke and Thomas Hobbes represented the beginning of a real political science in the seventeenth-century, and their conceptions of how government developed and what government should and should not do would be refined and extended by Rousseau and others and would eventually become the basis for the constitutional democracy of the United States. Hobbes was the first to try to put moral and political philosophy on a scientific basis, and Locke continued in this vein. The two find some agreement in their writings, but they also approach the issue from different perspectives. While each sees a relationship between human beings and their government in terms of human beings ceding certain powers to government in order to secure certain protections, Hobbes places more emphasis on civic responsibility, on the responsibility citizens owe to their ..."
| |
|
Aristotle, Hobbes, and Locke, 2004.
A discussion of whether Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes influenced the ?Founding Fathers? of the United States Constitution.
1,672 words (approx. 6.7 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 54.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explores the writings of Aristotle, John Locke, and Thomas Hobbes and reviews the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in an effort to determine whether or not these great thinkers influenced the Founding Fathers when they wrote these two historical documents.
From the Paper
"It is very clear that the ?Founding Fathers? of the U.S. were making as a foundation for the government of the U.S. to be infused with the power of the people and not of their own volition. Further those men were created with God-given rights that could not be taken from them by a governing body. In exploring the writings of Aristotle we find that the Declaration of Independence most certainly does contain the essence of what Aristotle wrote in the year 350 B.C.E."
| |
|
Hobbes and Locke, 2002.
A comparative analysis of Thomas Hobbes? and John Locke?s political theories.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the political beliefs of the two philosophers and theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It looks at how Hobbes' political theory is illustrated in the Leviathan which discusses the matter, form and power of a commonwealth. Hobbes was a social contract theorist who believed that a commonwealth was "but an artificial man?. It shows how Locke was also a social contract theorist who believed that the purpose of government was to protect the lives of subjects.
Outline
Hobbes
Locke
The Most Fundamental Differences
Weaknesses and Strengths
From the Paper
"Though both of these philosophers are social contract theorist there are some small differences in their ideals. Hobbes believed that once subjects gave consent to be governed they must abide by the laws set forth by that sovereign. He believed that subjects should be certain that the sovereign is going to do everything in his power to preserve their lives before they transfer their rights and wills to him. Once the rights and wills of the subjects are tranfered the sovereign becomes the voice of the commonwealth and his authority must be respected--the sovereign was the supreme power."
| |
|
Hobbes vs. Locke, 2003.
A comparison of the theories of government as per Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
3,650 words (approx. 14.6 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 101.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In developing their theory of government, both Hobbes and Locke start with a theoretical state of nature. As opposed to using concepts resulting from religion and divinity, this paper explains that both use nature as the basis to arrive at their respective conclusions. It compares the difference between the two theorists, as they lie in their ideas of the nature of man and how a man conducts himself in the state of nature. Although both talk of a social contract while developing their respective ideas of government, Hobbes favors monarchy. The writer first discusses the concepts within each thinker?s theory and then discusses the principal advantages and disadvantages of Locke's and Hobbes's social contract, stating which theory the writer believes to be the best.
From the Paper
"Hobbes is a product of the scientific revolution (a.k.a modern science), which was the point at which information (proof) was gathered to conclude facts rather than relying on the old book and religion. As a result, Hobbes attempts to answer questions as a scientist. There is debate on the methods he used, more specifically the atomic method. For example, ?people are the atoms of society.? In order to understand how people work, we must break the people down, put them back together to form the society, and then we will understand. Another example is the ?Ring of Gyges?. Gyges put the ring on his finger and he becomes invisible. If he turns one way he is invisible and turning the other way he becomes visible. The story ends by Gyges sneaking into the queen?s room, sleeping with her, and then he kills the king. The story exemplifies the ability to do anything that a person wants without ethical consequences. If a human being had the power to do anything they wanted without having to suffer from the possible consequences, they would use it to their advantage. According to Hobbes, humans seek to maximize. Psychological Egoism states that people always act to maximize their self-interest. Furthermore, we help other people because we believe it will help or strengthen our own self-interests. Altruism states that people are capable of compromising their own interest for the interest of other: risking your life for others. Egoist would run into a building on fire to save a person because they want to feel good about themselves or be recognized as a hero not necessarily for the welfare of that individual. Hobbes rejects Altruism all together."
| |
|
Hobbes and Locke, 2004.
This essay contrasts the ideologies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, concentrating on the constitutive value in their writings.
1,995 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although both philosophers share similar views, Hobbes and Locke have very different observations regarding laws and rights. It gives the following examples: the natural law, the social contract, and most importantly, fundamental law. The author points out that Hobbes takes the absolutist viewpoint supporting an absolute sovereign, while Locke supports a more democratic approach against an absolute sovereign. The paper concludes that both Hobbes and Locke shared vital theories that assisted in the creation of the United States Constitution.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Constitutionalist
The Absolutist
In Conclusion
From the Paper
"From this, we get Locke?s next section in the Second Treatise, which is on the state of war, which occurs within the state of nature. Locke tells us that the state of war is a ?state of Enmity and Destruction? where ?a sedate settled design is put upon another Mans Life.? In this case, there is a conscious design to end someone?s life, which can be linked to rights within the state of nature. The state of war is entered when a threat of life is made where the design of war has been instituted. The state of war can also be achieved when the freedom of a person is tampered with, as Locke states, ?for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power.?"
| |
|
Hobbes, Locke and the State of Nature, 2008.
A comparative analysis of the views of John Hobbes and Thomas Locke
on the state of nature.
2,944 words (approx. 11.8 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 87.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper relates that both Hobbes's "Leviathan" and Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" were written in England during times of political unrest and that both works take a broad and critical look at political systems and society. The paper further relates that both men believed that in order to properly understand politics in a society, man must first be studied in the state of nature, a time before structured society. The paper then explains that both Hobbes and Locke created their own hypothetical states of nature and theorized on what motivates the behavior of men in this state. In addition, the paper looks at how each philosopher defends opposing theories on men in a state of nature and concludes that, while these perspectives may be very different, the truth may lie somewhere in between.
Outline:
Introduction
Ideas of Thomas Hobbes
Ideas of John Locke
Analysis and Validity of Ideas
Conclusion
From the Paper
"While both Hobbes and Locke make very convincing arguments on the state of nature, I believe the actual truth falls somewhere in between. Both thinkers seem to approach the subject with a preconceived notion of man, and then attempt to create a hypothetical state of nature in which this type of man would fit. To best understand man in a state of nature, we must first look towards wildlife in its own state of nature. Humans are, of course, the most complex of creatures, but there are still other animals that live in a state of individual self-preservation and in a community. Primates, in particular chimpanzees, are one of the smartest and most human-like animals of the world. Chimpanzees live in a community together and interact on a constant basis. "
| |
|
Hobbes and Locke, 2005.
An analysis of the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke as exponents of the classical liberal tradition.
1,610 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This papaer examines the influences of their times on Locke and Hobbes, their differing views on the state of mankind and their common belief in the rational faculties of man.
From the Paper
"This research paper summarizes and analyzes the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in reference to the questions posed Hobbes and Locke as Exponents of the Classical Liberal Tradition. Both Hobbes and Locke were products ..."
|
|
|
