We ended our last class with the conclusion that the
biggest problems of America throughout history have been slavery, racism, equality
and depletion of environmental resources. All of these issues are in a way
connected with the idea what people define to be freedom and liberty. On the
one hand, Hobbes defines that liberty is doing what one wants without being
restrained by anything. On the other hand, Locke views liberty as something
given from God in favor of the people – so that we can make more of what we
have. Therefore, while their concepts of liberty differentiate to a certain extent,
they also convey a similar idea – that liberty is a concept created for the
better well-being of humans.
However, there are certain issues that arise from
their concept of liberty with which people have to tackle nowadays. These
issues are connected with the quantity of specific natural resources – a lot of
what was once in abundance is either extinct or near extinction. Also, many
animal species have disappeared. One of the first environmentalists, who raised
the question how much people need in order to survive and live a happy and fulfilling
life, was Henry David Thoreau. In his book Walden,
Thoreau openly criticizes the American society and its insatiable hunger
for more riches and luxury. He expresses the idea that people have become too
materialistic, and because of their selfish nature they have forgotten what is
truly valuable in life – to live in such a way as to be able to say that you
truly experienced life in its highest and lowest moments; to be able to feel pleasure
from the little; to know from where your food comes, etc. These are all topics
which Thoreau covers in his book. His message is that we don’t need much in
life and that we should appreciate the moments for what they are. He raises the
question whether it is right to take so much from the natural resources for our
needs.
Now let’s go back to the idea of what liberty is in
the opinions of Hobbes and Locke. On the one hand, their definition of liberty
is correct in terms of human nature because it conveys the idea of how our
society works – people are selfish and want more than what is enough. On the
other hand, their positions of what liberty should be (for the abundance of
humans’ needs) can be questioned: how can their concept of liberty be
considered as correct if it triggers in people the thirst for more when what
they already have is, in fact, in excess?
It is interesting that when I go through your post, the term "communist" always pop up to my mind, however I know it is really distinguished. If everyone only takes what's enough, then what about production? If everyone knows they are only getting small part, will they work hard to produce? Without production, the society can not develop. You may argue that there is someone just produce and create for fun, dream, etc, but most of people they work because they can get return. I think it draws us to an economic question, which is irrelevant to our class but crucial to this situation. If everyone only takes what's enough, will it really be better off for the whole society. I am not aiming at you,it is just that this question is always lingering in my mind every time I think of term such as "selfish" and "share".
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you're saying. I think that we can't truly know the best state of the world that man should be in. I mean this in terms of the state of nature vs. industrialization. What is better? I think man needs to utilize the Earth but only in a way the physical benefits man from a scientific perspective. We need to be able to understand ourselves before we can tamper with the land. We need to discover how to physically enhance life for the sake of our well beings. This needs to be done through the advancement of technology which of course cannot come from the state of nature but that is my issue. How do we know which to live in, the state of nature or through organized society?
ReplyDeleteEven though you wrote this post over a week ago, I think that it (and the previous comments) really pertain to our discussion in class today, regarding whether or not the government should be responsible for freedom and/or happiness.
ReplyDeleteWhile Thoreau emphasizes the joy that can be obtained from "the little things in life," those same little things will not make everybody happy. Similar to what Jia was saying in her comment about communism, I think it is impossible to guarantee everybody happiness. If a government provides security, stability, and equality; leaves enough freedom for people to choose where they live and work and how they go about having/not having a family; and guarantees a baseline level of quality of life, then I think that happiness will come as a side effect for most people. However, I think it is impossible for a government to explicitly try to make everybody the same amount of happy.
I absolutely agree with this last statement; that it is not only impossible to guarantee a sufficient amount of happiness, or any at all to its citizens by a government. I honestly feel like this aspect of government and its responsibility has been the simplest of discussions that we have encountered in class so far to actually resolve. However, if all of our civil freedom that we have is determined by our society/government, then there is still natural freedom to consider, which is significantly less malleable than that of civil freedom.
ReplyDelete