Introduction to Political Philosophy Reflection on Hobbess Argument

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Introduction to Political Philosophy

Reflection on Hobbes’s Argument of All Human Beings Equal in the State Of Nature

The reason Hobbes determined the above statement is because being in a natural state requires equal ability to survive, for which killing and conquering could be part of the process. Three elements become consistent elements of this process: opposing one another for access to resources, disbelief, and magnificence (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.-a). By using their natural power to gain priority over one another for gaining the necessary commodities, they would do whatever they think is right to preserve their lives. They do not care about moral or legal obligations that are useful in establishing a government and commonwealth (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.-a).

Jean-Jacques Argument in “The Noble Savage”

Jean-Jacques did not explicitly say that humans in the state of nature were vice or in the state of civil society were better off. He believed that their ‘noble savage’ attitude comes from their years of experience through their development and life progress struggles (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.-b). They have reasoning and thinking capabilities, unlike animals, even in the state of nature. However, the skills are raw and unpolished, as in their freedom. Again, this state does not make them civilized, and they have to learn from their circumstances and advancement possibilities to conquer over a thousand years by upgrading their reasoning competencies (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.-b).

Marx & Engels’ Argument for Distinguishing Animals from Humans

Humans should be distinguished from animals because of the ability to reason, with the help of which humans can pursue their right of subsistence. Humans can be characterized based on religion or nationality. However, survival goals and access to resources formulate an ideology of subsistence, conditioned under physical organization (Byron, 2016, p. 382). The actual material life of a human is, therefore, progressing towards material life as they make new advancements for their better survival. People change their living conditions and the environment by upgrading them to suit them for subsistence better. For example, if the bird can build a nest for shelter, humans can build their homes but with variations. Homes could be built from wood, cement and bricks, mud, and even modern homes made from glass. The novelty in ideas induces a material activity that differentiates humans from animals in terms of subsistence (Byron, 2016, p. 383).

Mary Wollstonecraft’s Argument about Public and Private Virtue of Women

Woman’s virtue is deemed problematic by Wollstonecraft since women are considered inferior beings as compared to men. In the eyes of society, men hold a dominating position, and for that, women have to submit to men for their survival and subsistence (Arendt, 2014, p. 142). For that matter, a human, actually women, who do not have their own free will and act upon their will, are not eligible for having a virtue of their own. Lack of free will is predicted as lack of mortality, which is the same for women under the light of Wollstonecraft’s argument. It is when political awareness of women’s civic rights arises among this gender. Wollstonecraft stated that women have equal civic duties since they take care of home affairs. For equality for both genders, it was perceived imperative for women to be educated (Arendt, 2014, p. 143).

John Stuart Mill’s Argument about Nature of Women Being an Artificial Thing

Mill believed that the nature of women is eminently artificial since they are forced upon by men and are subjected to repression. These are the unusual stimuli that women bear without their free will, which makes their circumstances strange (Gullin, 2006, p. 206). This bearing could be for their subsistence and survival within the society where already set dogma goes to male domination. The conditions that impact the nature of women under these predicaments are strange for Mill as the personality’s alterations are the regeneration with these impacts.

Freud’s Arguments about Life, Pains, Disappointments, and Impossible Tasks

The palliative measures in Freud’s argument could be powerful diversions, alternate fulfillment, and exhilarating substances (Freud, 2010). The powerful diversions are the situations or things of life that help reduce the miseries, alternate fulfillments are the sources within a person’s life that diminish the impacts of melancholy, and exhilarating substances are the effects that make humans impervious to the miseries for their survival through them.

John Locke’s Definition of Political Power

Locke defined political power as the rule-setting phenomenon that exhibits the penalties for doing wrong, which could also sometimes lead to death (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020a). The lawmakers could govern the state of nature since they display political sovereignty for punishments. An example of Locke’s exercise of political power could be seen when the Spanish were engrossed in obtaining wealth, mines, and power over the inhabitants with the help of their sword power (Arneil, 1996, p. 23). The spread of domination is believed to be for political independence and punishing those who were the dwellers of that time against natural or aboriginal peoples. The enforced domination by conquest is a form of punishment for those ruled by the Spanish, categorizing it as political power.

Hobbes’ Argument Regarding Human Nature Equality Being a State Of War

The problem of human equality in the state of natural causes since every person has the right to use his force to acquire resources for his subsistence (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.-a). The scarcity of commodities causes them to compete with each other and sometimes kill to conquer the desired entities. It could be thought of as ‘destroy or repress’ others, which could also become a means of instilling fear. Respect is missing for each other in this state since distrust aggravates the condition of war, making humans more brutal and vicious in extreme cases (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d.-a).

Locke’s Tacit Consent

Locke’s definition of tacit consent is when the individuals choose to give in to participate with subjugation with their consent in an area that they deem beneficial, especially under government rule (Nation, 2019, p. 86). The government is responsible for controlling the citizens with its political power, which includes morals and punishments. In contrast, the citizens enjoy the benefits that government gives them to maintain social order. Joining social networking sites could be an example where the signing-in individual shows his free will and informed consent without actually reading the ‘terms of conditions’ and simply clicking ‘I agree’ (Santarelli, n.d.). It is a classic illustration where the subscriber is giving consent to be controlled by the networking site under their data and cookie policies in exchange for the benefits.

Fundamental Problem According To Jean-Jacques

The fundamental problem is the conflict between humans being born free but still having to abide by a chain of rules to become ethical (Wright State University, n.d.). Autonomy and freedom are contrasted for which person and property could come in contact. This would be done for the enablement of each individual to either obey or be free, which is the basic problem identified by Jean-Jacques (Wright State University, n.d). The social contract, however, seeks to solve it.

David Hume’s Idea of Government Formation and Consent

Hume thought that consent does not matter when governments are to be formed since early governments were formed by two elements other than consent. The two examples of those elements are usurpation, conquest, and sometimes even both (University of Chicago Press Book Division, n.d.). They either depict the intended domination of those being governed or fair consent from the citizens.

Plato’s Opinion about If One Cannot Persuade His Government

In “The Duty of Obedience,” Plato’s character Socrates presented an argument that if one cannot persuade his country, then he must subdue to fulfill its orders, no matter how harsh they are, as it is their duty as a citizen (Ross, 1998, p. 314). One must become patient in this submission to punishment, even if it is in the form of imprisonment or lashing.

Henry David Thoreau’s Claim for Practical Reason for Majority Vote

Thoreau does not claim that majority is right; it might be supposed to be legitimate since it is physically tougher than the marginal sections of the population (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021-b). With majority rule, there could be more questions on the heavier side of the voting and based on an individual’s conscience for deciding right and wrong. The ethical guidelines for something to be ‘just’ come from reserved rights subjected to morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021-b).

Unjust Law, According To Martin Luther King

In line with Martin Luther King, an unjust law is imposed upon the citizens who are in majority while the minority does not have any part to play in it, suggesting a snatch of their right to vote (Love, 2022). It is a clear portrayal of the humiliation of humanity rather than elevating it. The difference between just and unjust would be based on discrimination that does not become a source of uplift for any individual’s personality, which should not be the aim of any country’s government. The government is meant for social wellbeing, whereas it would not be just until segregation causes distortion.