Expanding upon this idea of what contractualism is from Locke’s point of view, we can see that Locke views society as a whole, as good. He sees people as opting in on their own, and says all humans have the same capacity to think.So, if everyone is opting in for their own good, and well being, there must be a benefit there. The perceived benefits of opting in to this promise are things like safety, sustenance, a pursuit of happiness, the feeling of being equal. No man is above another in the state of nature and everyone has same right to claims of things as the next.
If people did not opt in, there would be total chaos. So, in some ways, Locke must be correct that we all have same capacity to think rationally on matters.
Locke touches on crime …show more content…
He also says this is unreasonable that every man has this executive power. We cannot be the judge in our own cases, and God appointed Government to restrain partiality and violence of men. (Locke, John)
Locke raps his argument in a tight little bow and all the loopholes of the state of nature by simply saying Civil Government would fix the inconveniences that arise from the laws of the
State of Nature, such things as being judge, jury and executioner among other things.
Some problems with Locke’s theory arises over this idea that everyone has free will to opt out.As Hume points out, what of a poor man that has no means to remove himself (Graham,
Gordon). Also, at the time, the vast majority of governments were monarchies, which meant …show more content…
Of course, later on we see this theory realized in America, where the ideas of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are almost stolen right off the pages of
Locke’s work and was one of the foundations of the nation we sit in today.
If we look at this from Hume’s point of view that some of us are trapped in society by our own constraints, then what is the rationality for these people “opting in”. Locke did not get a chance to answer this question. Which is a huge issue, because these people certainly were not getting the same freedoms and rights everyone else so enjoyed in the state of nature. What of property? How is it everyone has a right to this? Certainly is not the case for these folks who could be living on the streets or in the wild. If they truly entered into the state of nature on the precept of getting these things, they were in a sense screwed.
In conclusion, Locke makes some great arguments for contractualism. His view that we enter into a society on the precept of a promise works for a vast majority, because reason does in a way dictate our actions. We typically do not disobey laws, because rationally we know we will get into trouble. We do work on something, typically it is ours in the first place, or we
If people did not opt in, there would be total chaos. So, in some ways, Locke must be correct that we all have same capacity to think rationally on matters.
Locke touches on crime …show more content…
He also says this is unreasonable that every man has this executive power. We cannot be the judge in our own cases, and God appointed Government to restrain partiality and violence of men. (Locke, John)
Locke raps his argument in a tight little bow and all the loopholes of the state of nature by simply saying Civil Government would fix the inconveniences that arise from the laws of the
State of Nature, such things as being judge, jury and executioner among other things.
Some problems with Locke’s theory arises over this idea that everyone has free will to opt out.As Hume points out, what of a poor man that has no means to remove himself (Graham,
Gordon). Also, at the time, the vast majority of governments were monarchies, which meant …show more content…
Of course, later on we see this theory realized in America, where the ideas of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness are almost stolen right off the pages of
Locke’s work and was one of the foundations of the nation we sit in today.
If we look at this from Hume’s point of view that some of us are trapped in society by our own constraints, then what is the rationality for these people “opting in”. Locke did not get a chance to answer this question. Which is a huge issue, because these people certainly were not getting the same freedoms and rights everyone else so enjoyed in the state of nature. What of property? How is it everyone has a right to this? Certainly is not the case for these folks who could be living on the streets or in the wild. If they truly entered into the state of nature on the precept of getting these things, they were in a sense screwed.
In conclusion, Locke makes some great arguments for contractualism. His view that we enter into a society on the precept of a promise works for a vast majority, because reason does in a way dictate our actions. We typically do not disobey laws, because rationally we know we will get into trouble. We do work on something, typically it is ours in the first place, or we