1. Generally, rights are defined as claims or entitlements, and they take positive and negative forms. A negative right is a freedom from interference with regard to some activity or pursuit. Examples of negative rights include the right of freedom of speech and the right to worship. Meanwhile, a positive right is a claim to some good or service, such as rights to education or health care. Rights are also separated into moral and legal forms. A legal right is stipulated in a civil legal code, whereas a moral right is often defined as transcending local legal codes. Legal rights include the right to an attorney or to bear arms while moral rights include the right to life or the right to autonomy.
2. The two major views on the relationship between …show more content…
Anarchy is the theory that human beings shouldn’t be governed at all. Instead, anarchists insist that voluntarism would be sufficient to achieve the economic and social goals that we have. One might choose anarchy because they believe that human beings don’t need someone to tell us what to do. We are inherently good and perfectible, and God has made us to be reasonable and rational. If people would just work together and get along, we would be fine. While anarchy has this argument for the theory, the stronger arguments go against the theory of anarchy. First, our human nature is clearly corrupt. Without laws or governmental authorities, people would compete against each other for resources. Second, many people are not inspired to act towards a shared end. Voluntarism can only work if everyone works towards a shared goal. Since humans have different motivations, a system of laws would be needed to achieve this …show more content…
Locke begins with a state a nature that maintains a recognized law of nature to preserve one’s life. Since everyone has the executive power of the law of nature, everyone is equal. Locke claims that the result would end in enmity and destruction. The first distinction between Hobbes’ theory, however, is the claim that this situation is not a hypothetical fiction. Instead, this state of man has always been present in the world. Furthermore, Locke is not just interested in preserving the rights of life and liberty through social contract. He also seeks to include the right to own property as well. Locke establishes a clear selection criterion (majority rule) for the social contract whereas Hobbes fails to do so. Finally, the most distinct difference in Locke’s theory is the type of leader that rules the people. Instead of a sovereign commonwealth, the rulers appointed by the people remain accountable to them as the rulers lead their government. If they fail to do so, the people have a right to dissolve the government. Therefore, the rulers’ power is not absolute but invested and conditional to the
2. The two major views on the relationship between …show more content…
Anarchy is the theory that human beings shouldn’t be governed at all. Instead, anarchists insist that voluntarism would be sufficient to achieve the economic and social goals that we have. One might choose anarchy because they believe that human beings don’t need someone to tell us what to do. We are inherently good and perfectible, and God has made us to be reasonable and rational. If people would just work together and get along, we would be fine. While anarchy has this argument for the theory, the stronger arguments go against the theory of anarchy. First, our human nature is clearly corrupt. Without laws or governmental authorities, people would compete against each other for resources. Second, many people are not inspired to act towards a shared end. Voluntarism can only work if everyone works towards a shared goal. Since humans have different motivations, a system of laws would be needed to achieve this …show more content…
Locke begins with a state a nature that maintains a recognized law of nature to preserve one’s life. Since everyone has the executive power of the law of nature, everyone is equal. Locke claims that the result would end in enmity and destruction. The first distinction between Hobbes’ theory, however, is the claim that this situation is not a hypothetical fiction. Instead, this state of man has always been present in the world. Furthermore, Locke is not just interested in preserving the rights of life and liberty through social contract. He also seeks to include the right to own property as well. Locke establishes a clear selection criterion (majority rule) for the social contract whereas Hobbes fails to do so. Finally, the most distinct difference in Locke’s theory is the type of leader that rules the people. Instead of a sovereign commonwealth, the rulers appointed by the people remain accountable to them as the rulers lead their government. If they fail to do so, the people have a right to dissolve the government. Therefore, the rulers’ power is not absolute but invested and conditional to the