In John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, the
author discusses a world governed by a natural law. Locke’s natural law
consists of the idea that all men are morally equal – this means that a person
can seek revenge over a criminal. However, people do not have the right to kill
when they do not have any justifiable reason to do so. They also do not have
the right to demolish what they do not own.
In our last class,
we were discussing the question whether we would live under Locke’s government
or Hobbes’. We defined Locke’s government as safer but Hobbes’ as freer and hence,
giving people more opportunities to do what they want without being punished. Some
people claimed that Hobbes’ idea of what the government should be like is better.
However, if that is to be believed, a question that comes into mind is isn’t
such government going to have dreadful consequences in the future of our
society.
Let’s picture Hobbes’ idea of government in the current world:
Under Hobbes’ government
people will have more freedom than under Locke’s. This freedom is expressed in
the idea that people will not be punished for any of their actions, since there
will not be a real government. However, the consequences can be terrifying as
noted from the article about the war in Syria. As we can see, so far the Syrian
victims are over 200,000, and the Syrian refugees – 4 million. Mariam Akash, a
mother and a widow, conveys the situation in Syria in just two sentences: “We're
just living on the edge of life. We're always nervous, we're always afraid”.
Hence, this shows that there is no such thing as “just war”. Every war is
devastating in terms of the society and the country itself. Therefore, we
should start asking ourselves which one is worse: anarchy or tyranny? The
second one provides people with physical safety, whereas the first one – with death
and pain. So if you thought that living under someone’s regime is worse than
living in a constant state of war, think twice.
I think it is very smart of you that bring the condition in Syria into what we just discussed in class. It is indeed a nearly anarchy in Syria because of the unorganized war.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have a question about what you said about Hobbes's theory. Does Hobbes really think that "Under Hobbes’ government people will have more freedom than under Locke's", and "this freedom is expressed in the idea that people will not be punished for any of their actions, since there will not be a real government"? Because as what I'd known about Hobbes, is that he believes people can set up the contract they like and nobody is allowed to break it once it is set. The contract can either be easy or harsh. It seems he does not clearly say his type of government is loosed.
I find it very interesting to think more about what you ask by the end. I personally prefer a anarchy to a tyranny because I think there is no such a state of the world that would be like what Hobbes describes in "the state of nature". I believe there is a nature law that is obeyed by all animals, would be followed by man naturally since human beings have more sense on the concept "family" than other mammals and they will take care of their own people as a group.
Going off what William said, I think that you may have switched around Hobbes and Locke when you said that Hobbes' ideal government would be "freer" than Locke; based on the readings, I would say that Locke allows for more personal freedom than Hobbes does.
ReplyDeleteI personally would choose tyranny over anarchy, but Locke's government over Hobbes'.
I would say it is important to take into account not just the approach to government by Hobbes for instance, but also his take on the human state of nature, which leans toward a more cynical and pessimistic existence. As a result, I would be more inclined to agree with the blog's opinion on choosing tyranny over anarchy, which is particularly dangerous if one takes into consideration Hobbes' general views.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel about the point that whether Locke or Hobbes's government can preserve more freedom. In terms of that, I will state that I would rather live under anarchy over tyranny. Strong can always find his way to live a better life under no matter what circumstance. If one lives under anarchy, he can live by making himself strong.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel about the point that whether Locke or Hobbes's government can preserve more freedom. In terms of that, I will state that I would rather live under anarchy over tyranny. Strong can always find his way to live a better life under no matter what circumstance. If one lives under anarchy, he can live by making himself strong.
ReplyDelete