This month’s conversation centered on the idea of a human nature and inherit characteristic of humanity based on our human nature. It was a discussion that has two men on two different sides of the idea. The clashing ideas, firstly the ideas that humanity is raw, evil, and selfish, and the other saw humans as inherently good creatures. This lead to so testy comments of both sides. However, after discussing the merits of humanities inherit characteristic, the discussion moved towards how inherit effective the form of government that a nation should have to properly function. The men that give us this lovely, and heated discussion were Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke.
Our first speaker is Thomas Hobbes, the poster child of a defense for secular …show more content…
Ironically, both stated that it was different events in English History that lead them to form the base of their ideas of human nature. Hobbes discussed the horrors of the English Civil War. He believed that England was thrown into archery, once the Kings head was cut off. He stated, that in the violence that followed the beheading of the king revealed the basic evil of humanity. It was a view of human’s in a state of nature. Locke chose a different event the effected his writing, rather the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Rather, the event of political violence, in 1688 became the turn for the people. Locke stated that it was crucial for the formation of the government the protect the rights of the people. He stated the crowning moment was the Bills of Right which formed a Constitutional …show more content…
Locke agreed with this point that men must agree to enter into the contract with the governing body, stating: “to the preservation of the whole.” However, the idea submitting to the formation was the only part of government that the men agreed on during their ideas of government. Hobbes discussed he necessity of the absolute rulers, because only strong leadership would allow for people to stay out of the state of nature. Hobbes went as far to say that the subjects cannot throw off the Monarchy. He stated: “cannot cast off Monarchy…[to] break their contract made to that man [monarch], which is injustice.”
At this point Lock could not contain himself, and broke stating the importance of personal freedom, and entering into society for “the preservation of their [people’s] property.” Locke pushed the idea that government was placed for the good of mankind, not the good of the ruler. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed the upmost importance was the preservation of personal liberties, and if the government infringed upon these rights then, it is within the people’s right to
Our first speaker is Thomas Hobbes, the poster child of a defense for secular …show more content…
Ironically, both stated that it was different events in English History that lead them to form the base of their ideas of human nature. Hobbes discussed the horrors of the English Civil War. He believed that England was thrown into archery, once the Kings head was cut off. He stated, that in the violence that followed the beheading of the king revealed the basic evil of humanity. It was a view of human’s in a state of nature. Locke chose a different event the effected his writing, rather the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Rather, the event of political violence, in 1688 became the turn for the people. Locke stated that it was crucial for the formation of the government the protect the rights of the people. He stated the crowning moment was the Bills of Right which formed a Constitutional …show more content…
Locke agreed with this point that men must agree to enter into the contract with the governing body, stating: “to the preservation of the whole.” However, the idea submitting to the formation was the only part of government that the men agreed on during their ideas of government. Hobbes discussed he necessity of the absolute rulers, because only strong leadership would allow for people to stay out of the state of nature. Hobbes went as far to say that the subjects cannot throw off the Monarchy. He stated: “cannot cast off Monarchy…[to] break their contract made to that man [monarch], which is injustice.”
At this point Lock could not contain himself, and broke stating the importance of personal freedom, and entering into society for “the preservation of their [people’s] property.” Locke pushed the idea that government was placed for the good of mankind, not the good of the ruler. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed the upmost importance was the preservation of personal liberties, and if the government infringed upon these rights then, it is within the people’s right to