Achieving Justice - Essay Example

Philosophy Question Rousseau would respond to the passage by emphasizing that justice exists and that it can be attained through the public and civil authorities acting in harmony to fulfill their ethical obligations towards each other. Justice can be attained when people work together rather than working individually for one’s own benefit. Furthermore, there is a moral responsibility to abide by civil authority as long as the authority is genuine. For example, if the authority is built upon a just and fair agreement amid society’s members (Rousseau par 6). To protect their property and themselves, individuals may assent to a contractual affiliation whereby they unite themselves in an alliance for the good of all. Through channels of this pledged relationship, persons concur to accept different duties or responsibilities in return for the gains provided by communal cooperation. A democracy may be started on the base of a mutual pledge between community, and each person, in which society has a responsibility to every person and each person has a responsibility to society. For Locke, the natural justice will set the restrictions and provide the way for civil justice through the natural rights’ concept. Conferring to Locke, impartiality is not conceivable without personal possessions—meaning that justice will prevail only when a person has a claim to a property. The principle of Locke’s notion of impartiality is the safety of each individual’s personal property as a right built upon nature’s law (Locke par 5). Confucian would respond to the passage by stating the government has an obligation to attend to its citizens without favoritism or discrimination. Confucian believes that people can attain a good life through developing moral righteousness and take part in valued human relationships. Confucian would advise against bad behaviors such as being self-seeking. Confucian believes that the government has an obligation to uphold the settings, which are essential to the ‘good life’. The notion of fairness infers that the state should foster or create these settings impartially for everyone so that every individual is in a position to live a better life. An impartial society, therefore, has the following features; sufficiency for everyone, universal education and meritocracy. Question 2 A Hobbes and Locke are both well-known political theorists whose works have been momentously influential into the modern-political thought development. Moreover, they are alike in that they both denote a “state of nature” wherein man exists minus the government, as well as both talk of risks within this state. Nonetheless, while both talk of the risks of a ‘state of nature’, Hobbes is pessimistic while Locke talks of the possible benefits (Locke par 5). Hobbes talks of ‘states of nature’ hypothetically, while Locke points out instances where they are. Both men denote men to be equal within this state of nature; Hobbes affirms that nature has made men equal win the abilities of body and mind. Likewise, Locke explains the nature-of-nature as a condition of perfect impartiality, where inherently there is no dominance or authority of one on another. Regardless of this parity; nonetheless, both men caution of the risk of the ‘state of nature’. For Hobbes, the whole time, which man is within a ‘state of nature’, he is inside a state of warfare. Hobbes states that two men can become enemies when it becomes impossible to relish the same item; in return they endeavor to wreck each other. Locke also points out threats, saying that minus the nature law’s everybody may execute verdicts, resulting to a state of mess (Locke par 5).   Hobbes and Locke’s ‘state of nature’ differ from one another. Firstly, Hobbes’ nature-of-nature is continually in a mess of war.  Rendering to him, the main purpose why men give up their power to the supreme is to pursue tranquility, and evade the “fear of demise”. In contrast, whereas Locke does talk of ‘states of war’ also, for Locke they are a subclass of the ‘state of nature’, and not the whole equation (Locke par 5). Another difference amid that Hobbes talks hypothetically about ‘states of nature’, while Locke indicates times when ‘state of nature’ really exists. Locke trusts that all leaders are within a ‘state of nature’, as well as the authorities. Question 2 B Yes. Locke believes that every individual is brought forth with the natural rights to estate, liberty and life. The natural law state that nothing is created by God for men to destroy, and according to Locke men have no right to waste their liberty. Question 3 A Mill would disagree with Rousseau’s notion that people need to be forced to be free. Mill alleged that authority was inherently oppressive. Mill only supported state’s intervention into a sensible and competent person’s affairs when it is crucial to saving an individual’s life. According to Mill, the state can offer information, but undertake no action except when someone is impairing another (Mill par 4). Force is only justified when stopping people from destroying one another. Mill was not a huge supporter of positive civil liberties and the government having a great role in publics’ lives. Mill would strongly differ with Rousseau since Mill saw restraint, which can be a form of force, as foul. Rousseau’s constrain of the ‘general will’ apparently is a form of paternalism (Mill par 5). The indication that a gathering of one’s peers can intrude when one goes against them, as well as steer that person in the proper direction or compel that person to follow a rule, is same as they are determining what is suitable for that person and exerting authority. Mill strongly resisted paternalism and indicated that paternalism is the foe of freedom; it is not at all legitimate (Mill par 6). Question 3 B Rousseau’s general will advocates for what is good for the whole community and not just the people who are concerned (Rousseau par 3). Mill’s greatest happiness principle advocates that people are not obliged to consider their actions with respect to the benefit of all. In fact, people should only bear in mind those persons who are affected and leave out the rest. Mill’s principle of happiness also advocates people to sacrifice their happiness for the good of everyone else. This contradicts with Rousseau’s good will, which makes decisions that affect everybody, not just a few people. Rousseau’s general will tries to eliminate inequalities that emanate from acquiring and lack of property. He also believes that a society governed by the good will unlikely suffer from civil society evils, which threaten the balance and peace of the society. Unlike Mill’s principle of happiness that does have the interests of everyone at heart, Rousseau’s general will advocates for equality. Rousseau states that man was equal to the one next him prior to the restraints of government as well as private ownership of properties. Works Cited Locke, John, and J. W. Gough. The Second Treatise of Civil Government. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1946. Print. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1690. Print. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. London: Dent, 1762. Print. Read More