Habibullah Khyabani
Dr. John Shea
December 10, 2017
Life, Liberty, and Civil Disobedience
One of the most influential political philosophers in history, John Locke believed that all men have the right to life, liberty and property. That men are free, naturally and that no one is subject to a monarch. However people, as part of the social contract, transfer some of their rights to government to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Locke states however that if these rights are threatened by the government then the people have a right to civil disobedience and revolution. Similarly Martin Luther King Jr. believed the same, that if their rights we being threatened or taken away in the form …show more content…
The state of nature was lacked a government and each individual retained all of his or her natural rights. People possessed these natural rights (including the right to preserve one’s life, to seize unclaimed treasures, and so forth) because they were given by God to all of his people. However the state of nature is unstable and chaotic. Individuals would be under contrast threat of physical harm. And they would be unable to pursue any goals that required stability and widespread cooperation with other humans. Locke’s claim is that government rose from this turmoil. Individuals, realizing the benefits, decided to relinquish some of their rights to a central authority while retaining other rights. This took the form of a contract. In agreement for relinquishing certain rights, individuals would receive protection from physical harm, security for their possessions, and the ability to interact and cooperate with other humans in a stable environment. Locke on the nature of property states that one must not take so much property that some of it goes to waste. One should not appropriate tons of fruit if I am only able to eat a few and the rest end up rotting. If the goods of the Earth were given to us by God, it would be …show more content…
believed that rebellion and peaceful protest are necessary when an individuals rights are threatened. When asked how can you justify breaking laws, King responded “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.” First, he argued that even though nonviolence may be perceived as cowardly, it was not. According to King, a nonviolent protester was as passionate as a violent protester. Second, the point of nonviolent resistance is not to humiliate the opponent, but instead to gain his friendship and understanding. The third point King advanced was that the battle was against the forces of evil and not individuals. Tension was not between the races, but was "between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Fourth, nonviolent resistance required the willingness to suffer. Accordingly, the end was more important than safety, and retaliatory violence would distract from the main fight. King's fifth point about nonviolent resistance was that the "universe was on the side of justice." Accordingly, people have a "cosmic companionship" with God who is on the side of truth. Therefore, the activist has faith that justice will occur in the future. King's sixth point was central to the method of nonviolent resistance. He believed the importance of nonviolence rested in the fact that it prevented physical violence and the "internal violence of
Dr. John Shea
December 10, 2017
Life, Liberty, and Civil Disobedience
One of the most influential political philosophers in history, John Locke believed that all men have the right to life, liberty and property. That men are free, naturally and that no one is subject to a monarch. However people, as part of the social contract, transfer some of their rights to government to better ensure the stable, comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. Locke states however that if these rights are threatened by the government then the people have a right to civil disobedience and revolution. Similarly Martin Luther King Jr. believed the same, that if their rights we being threatened or taken away in the form …show more content…
The state of nature was lacked a government and each individual retained all of his or her natural rights. People possessed these natural rights (including the right to preserve one’s life, to seize unclaimed treasures, and so forth) because they were given by God to all of his people. However the state of nature is unstable and chaotic. Individuals would be under contrast threat of physical harm. And they would be unable to pursue any goals that required stability and widespread cooperation with other humans. Locke’s claim is that government rose from this turmoil. Individuals, realizing the benefits, decided to relinquish some of their rights to a central authority while retaining other rights. This took the form of a contract. In agreement for relinquishing certain rights, individuals would receive protection from physical harm, security for their possessions, and the ability to interact and cooperate with other humans in a stable environment. Locke on the nature of property states that one must not take so much property that some of it goes to waste. One should not appropriate tons of fruit if I am only able to eat a few and the rest end up rotting. If the goods of the Earth were given to us by God, it would be …show more content…
believed that rebellion and peaceful protest are necessary when an individuals rights are threatened. When asked how can you justify breaking laws, King responded “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust.” First, he argued that even though nonviolence may be perceived as cowardly, it was not. According to King, a nonviolent protester was as passionate as a violent protester. Second, the point of nonviolent resistance is not to humiliate the opponent, but instead to gain his friendship and understanding. The third point King advanced was that the battle was against the forces of evil and not individuals. Tension was not between the races, but was "between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness. Fourth, nonviolent resistance required the willingness to suffer. Accordingly, the end was more important than safety, and retaliatory violence would distract from the main fight. King's fifth point about nonviolent resistance was that the "universe was on the side of justice." Accordingly, people have a "cosmic companionship" with God who is on the side of truth. Therefore, the activist has faith that justice will occur in the future. King's sixth point was central to the method of nonviolent resistance. He believed the importance of nonviolence rested in the fact that it prevented physical violence and the "internal violence of