John Stuart Mill And Thomas Hobbes

With more change to the definition of the freedom the word becomes less and less free. Just like the pigs, the government, in Animal Farm, they would change the seven commandments on the barn wall; therefore, giving themselves new powers and privileges, while restricting the other animals, common peoples, freedom and power. “Harrison Bergeron” short story also follows the same ideas as Animal Farm, by the government controlling the people’s freedom so much that they couldn’t think, act, or speak making them not free at all. In “Harrison Bergeron” it says, “If Hazel hadn’t been able to come up with an answer to this, question, George couldn’t have supplied one. A siren was going off in his head.” This shows that the people have lost the freedom of thinking and speaking without even knowing. This happened by the people in the story being born into a not free society, even though they think there free because they were raised believing they were living a free life. The story “Harrison Bergeron” show the importants of freedom over equality because freedom you have the power to be or achieve anything you want to be able to while equality, everyone’s equal and there’s nothing to strive for. This is just like Animal Farm and how at first all of the animals could read and write, but as time went on only the pigs learn how

From the book “The Giver”, I have noticed an important message that the author wanted to tell us – The importance of freedom.

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, their views on what it means to be ‘free’ vary significantly. It was Isaiah Berlin who first created the concepts of negative and positive freedom that helped to differentiate between the two liberals’ views of freedom. The concept of negative freedom was adopted by classical liberals, who believed that freedom was defined as being left alone and free from interference. Classical liberals believed this theory to mean that individuals should be free from external restrictions or constraints. Modern liberals, on the other hand, believed in positive freedom. This, modernist’s perceived to means that all individuals have the ability to be their own master, and thus reach full autonomy. Unlike classical liberals, who had little faith in humankind, Modernists conveyed humans in a much more positive light: people are rational beings that are capable, and therefore should be able, to flourish and

In the 17 and 18 the philosophers hoped they could discover new ways to understand and improve society.The four philosophers were John Locke,Voltaire, Adam Smith, and Mary Wollstonecraft each one of them were writing about different areas of human society, including government,religion,economy, and the social role of women.

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

The story “lord of the flies’’ by William Golding, the novel correlates to the philosophical views of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. John Locke was an English philosopher that surmised man's natural moral compass would point towards good, Locke's philosophical writings stated “ that individuals in a state of nature would have stronger moral limits on their actions. Essentially, Locke thought that our human nature was characterized by reason and tolerance. People, Locke believed, were basically good’’ ( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2). John Locke thought if people were given no rules they would make a paradise, flourishing in law, order, and structure, Thomas Hobbes believed people were naturally cruel and chaotic, with a need of a strong ruler to make decisions. Hobbes stated, “Who felt that mankind was inherently evil and required a strong central authority to ward off this inclination toward an immoral behavior, Locke believed that human nature allowed men to be selfish’’( Locke and Hobbes Overview 2 ). Thomas Hobbes believed a strong iron-fisted ruler was needed for the safety and well being of a society. The ideals of man in a natural state, follow Thomas Hobbes philosophical view represented through Jack's brutish and monarch like attitude which lead to them living in a dystopian society.

Locke and Hobbes started with a central notion that people with similar “state of nature” would on their own accord come together as a state. Locke believed that individual would not perpetually be at war with each other. He believed humans began with a state of natural characteristics of absolute freedom with no government in site. Hobbes work differs from that of Locke’s because he felt people needed a strong central authority to ward off the inherent evil and anarchic state of man. Locke believed that within the state of nature man would have stronger morals and thus limit their actions. Locke also, credited people with the ability to do the right thing within a group. And the natural rights and civil society where Hobbes differentiated with this by believing that people had to resolve their natural rights and the their were privileges granted by the sovereign. Locke believed the relationship between citizens and government took the form of a social contract, in which in exchange for order and protections provided by institutions the citizens agree to surrender some of the freedoms within the state of nature. This was also, agreed that power of the state was not absolute but exercised according to law. If broken by the state it forfeits and the contract becomes void. This allots for the citizens of the state to have a “voice” and power for change to replace the government with moral obligation by the governed. Hobbes believed absolute power was the price man should

The staple of societal thought, freedom, is the power to act, speak, or think as one wants without the concern of being oppressed (Webster). Freedom, is a unique element to the mixture of liberty across the United States. Martin Luther King Jr’s a “letter of Birmingham Jail,” and Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence both advocate the claim for freedom. Both of these historical figures make this apparent by arguing for the protest against tradition, a change across unjust laws, although they differ between the kinds of change to be enforced.

John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.

By freedom he meant total desegregation of every public facility and the right to vote for Blacks. He expressed his anguish during the struggles he faced against the Montgomery political system in Alabama, "I saw further that the underlying purpose of segregation was to oppress and exploit the segregated, not simply to keep them apart" ("Autobiography" 70).

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

In the 18th century, a fierce debate broke out among many philosophers about the nature of the human psyche. Many argued whether humans in a state of nature were constantly at war with one another or whether these same humans were peaceful in their natural setting. From this debate, many other important philosophical arguments arose over the state of human nature. One of the most important arguments was the discussion of equality between human beings. Many authors believed that natural inequalities existed between human being. While others debated that human inequality was either negligible or completely non-existent. Within this debate, two thinkers, Thomas Hobbes and Adam Smith, came down with complex arguments on the equality of human beings. This essay will begin by walking through the argument of each influential thinkers. After establishing the argument of each writer the essay will then make the argument that Thomas Hobbes has a greater commitment to the idea of natural equality based off his that even though natural differences exist these are so negligible that their existence is unimportant.

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are both well known to be associated with the state of nature. However, the philosophers have extremely distinct views on how the state of nature should be lived out. Hobbes is a highly conservative and harsh in tone in his views of humans and how they react in a state of nature. For example, he believes that men are selfish and will act in a way that only benefits themselves. Locke, on the contrary, thinks that men are not out to get each other. He has trust in the human nature and believes men will act with integrity and honesty in their everyday lives.

By the second half of the 17th Century, England would experience one of the bloodiest conflicts in its history, ultimately serving to influence some of the most phenomenal political philosophers in Europe --Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. England was in constant unrest, choosing new forms of government almost on a whim in desperate attempts to restore order in the Country. The English Civil War in 1642 etched a legacy of dread in the people of England, and the war only appeared more disastrous and fruitless when it became apparent the new Puritanical regime was just as irresponsible as the previous regime by Charles I and his predecessor James I. Therefore, when the Glorious Revolution arrived in 1588, England was relieved that the Government was finally adapting to advocate the toleration and the security of civil liberties on a grander scale. No longer would rulers attempt to mimic the authority of Louis XIV and other absolute monarchs. However, without the historical events that had occurred in England, it is unclear whether England 's present form of government--nor any Republic thereafter--would be the same because the historical events which influenced the political philosophies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were derived mainly from a combination of elements from the English Civil War, The Leveller Movement, The Puritanical Dictatorship, or Louis XIV’s reign.

One would be right in assuming that we would not do something in life unless it has something to offer us. There is no point to complete an action unless the action’s consequence benefitted us in some way. Furthermore, there a notion that in life we must aspire to do more than just what we like, understanding that living life is taking the bad with the good. However, for hedonists this notion is non-existent. Hedonism is the pursuit of pleasure while simultaneously avoiding pain, deriving happiness only from pleasure achieved and pain avoided. John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham are two philosophers who fall into the Utilitarian and hedonist camp. However, while both men are Utilitarian, they differ greatly in their thoughts on hedonism. Where Bentham takes a quantitative stance, Mill assumes the, admittedly more complicated, quantitative position. In Mill doing so, he distinguishes between two types of pleasure: higher pleasures and lower pleasures. In this paper, I plan to prove that Mill’s view is not philosophically defensible. I will do so by showing that Mill ventures from Hedonism as he takes a more objective stance that is not based on pleasure alone.