The philosopher john locke: a work of political ingenuity
Locke’s profound writings have had significant impact and influence on the works of future political thinkers till today. He is the principal architect of the enlightenment which inspired the American and French revolution. Locke’s view is instrumental in modern philosophy. As a major proponent of liberalism aim to posit …. The work of Locke focuses on establishing civil society, choice of leadership and right of the people to resist oppression or desire change. As derived from his writing on self-preservation Locke noted that the development of strength is for security of state and not to increase its power over another state insisting that right is out measured by might. He asserted …show more content…
He tows the line of Kant in this regard by stating that the “use of force without right by one state upon another constitute state of war." Also, use of force without right i.e., illegitimately use of power between state and its people without common superior intervening revert a society to a state of nature.
Between kant and locke: similarities and the incongruity in their thought
This part focuses on the contrasting views and similarities between the works of Locke and Kant on civil society. The latter’s approach towards the same idea was more abstract and somewhat controversial than the views of Locke. Some writers argue that the reason for the inconsistency in philosophical work of Kant is because unlike Locke who was active in politics during his period, Kant was less active in the political scene only restricting himself to lecture at the University of
Kant differs with Locke on the historical authenticity of state of nature and thinks more of it as a necessity for the establishment of a state. Unlike Kant, Locke did not see state of nature as a state of war, rejecting the position of Hobbes that state of nature is characterized by war but rather it a society where individuals are free and equal i.e., there is natural …show more content…
Kant like Locke favours the social contract and posit that politics is to ensure right i.e., law and justice. However, there are “restraints which the individual must accept in order to avoid conflict and enjoy freedom” (ibid., p. 39). Similarly, both philosophers were attempting to establish a state of peace that justifies man’s right to political freedom. Social contract is the demand for civil constitution to enable a society of free, equal and independent individuals. Kant goes further to point out that the establishment of a constitution will spread rationality. Kant recognised the political views of Locke in his conception of sovereignty and writings on resistance to unjust ruler, right of social welfare, and French revolution pushing for a holistic reform from the top downwards. According to both Locke and Kant, no state has right over another state or to dominate it since they are all equal sovereign state. They both see states in the international political arena in a state of nature as obtainable in individual societies. An opinion shared by Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz and other political realists that there was no distinction between domestic politics and international
Locke’s profound writings have had significant impact and influence on the works of future political thinkers till today. He is the principal architect of the enlightenment which inspired the American and French revolution. Locke’s view is instrumental in modern philosophy. As a major proponent of liberalism aim to posit …. The work of Locke focuses on establishing civil society, choice of leadership and right of the people to resist oppression or desire change. As derived from his writing on self-preservation Locke noted that the development of strength is for security of state and not to increase its power over another state insisting that right is out measured by might. He asserted …show more content…
He tows the line of Kant in this regard by stating that the “use of force without right by one state upon another constitute state of war." Also, use of force without right i.e., illegitimately use of power between state and its people without common superior intervening revert a society to a state of nature.
Between kant and locke: similarities and the incongruity in their thought
This part focuses on the contrasting views and similarities between the works of Locke and Kant on civil society. The latter’s approach towards the same idea was more abstract and somewhat controversial than the views of Locke. Some writers argue that the reason for the inconsistency in philosophical work of Kant is because unlike Locke who was active in politics during his period, Kant was less active in the political scene only restricting himself to lecture at the University of
Kant differs with Locke on the historical authenticity of state of nature and thinks more of it as a necessity for the establishment of a state. Unlike Kant, Locke did not see state of nature as a state of war, rejecting the position of Hobbes that state of nature is characterized by war but rather it a society where individuals are free and equal i.e., there is natural …show more content…
Kant like Locke favours the social contract and posit that politics is to ensure right i.e., law and justice. However, there are “restraints which the individual must accept in order to avoid conflict and enjoy freedom” (ibid., p. 39). Similarly, both philosophers were attempting to establish a state of peace that justifies man’s right to political freedom. Social contract is the demand for civil constitution to enable a society of free, equal and independent individuals. Kant goes further to point out that the establishment of a constitution will spread rationality. Kant recognised the political views of Locke in his conception of sovereignty and writings on resistance to unjust ruler, right of social welfare, and French revolution pushing for a holistic reform from the top downwards. According to both Locke and Kant, no state has right over another state or to dominate it since they are all equal sovereign state. They both see states in the international political arena in a state of nature as obtainable in individual societies. An opinion shared by Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz and other political realists that there was no distinction between domestic politics and international