Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John locke views
A paper on religious tolerance john locke
John locke essay philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John locke views
Locke, Aristotle and Aquinas
In the tomes of history, many philosophers have outlined their visions of a perfect society. Until recently however, few have ventured into the waters of religious tolerance. One such philosopher was John Locke. Writing in the late 17th century, Locke advocated a complete separation between church and state. He argued for an unprecedented tolerance of people of all faiths. Although Locke's views became widely popular throughout Europe and the Americas, they did not meet with unanimous approval. Many earlier philosophers disagreed with Locke. Two such philosophers were Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas disagreed in three key respects: Compulsion, toleration, and authority. Aristotle, on the other hand, disagreed on a more fundamental issue: the goal of politics itself. This essay aims to elucidate Locke's arguments, and then explicate Aristotle and Aquinas' would-be objections to Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke discusses the issue of civil tolerance. His main premise is that society is constituted merely for the procuring, preserving, and advancing of civil interests. He defines civil interest as:
Life, Liberty, Health, and Indolency of Boy; and the Possession of outward things, such as Money, Lands, Houses, Furniture, and the like.1
Having explained civil interests in terms of material possessions, Locke argues that the only concern of the Magistracy should be the violation of these civil interests. The Magistracy is to enforce these rights through punishment, or by threatening the deprivation of the aforesaid rights. But since no individual would voluntarily forfeit these freedoms, the Magist...
... middle of paper ...
...ed States of America; 1983
Baumgarth, William P and Richard J Regan [eds]. Aquinas, Saint Thomas. On Law, Morality, and Politics. Hackett Publishing Company, United States of America; 1988
Notes
1 Tully, James H.[ed] Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. P. 26
2 Ibid. P. 27
3 An obvious referral to the Arab Muslims, whom Europeans deemed as "heathens" and "infidels." This term generally considered offensive, by most Muslims.
4 Baumgarth, William P and Richard J Regan [eds]. Aquinas, Saint Thomas. On Law, Morality, and
Politics. P. 250
5 Ibid. P. 250 (with emphasis added)
6 Ibid. P. 251
7 Ibid. P. 255 (emphasis added)
8 Tully, James H.[ed] Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. P. 46
9 Ibid. P. 47
10 Lord, Carnes [trans.] Aristotle, The Politics. P. 99
11 Ibid. P. 98
Throughout the existence of man debates over property and inequality have always existed. Man has been trying to reach the perfect state of society for as long as they have existed. John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King are three great examples of men who broke down the basics of how property and inequality are related. Each historical figure has their own distinct view on the situation. Some views are similar while others vary greatly. These philosophers and seekers of peace and equality make many great arguments as to how equality and property can impact man and society. Equality and property go hand in hand in creating an equal society. Each authors opinion has its own factors that create a mindset to support that opinion. In this paper we will discuss the writings of John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Martin Luther King Jr. and the factors that influenced their opinions on inequality and property.
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Approximately three hundred years separate the earliest of these works, The Prince, from the most recent, Utilitarianism, and a progression is discernible in the concept of morality over this span. Machiavelli does not mention the word "morality," but his description of the trends and ideals of human political interaction allow for a reasonable deduction of the concept. Locke, too, does not use the word, but he does write of "the standard of right and wrong." In contrast, Mill writes explicitly and extensively of morality in its forms, sources, and obligations. A logical starting point in this examination is a look at their relative views of human nature.
John Stuart Mill defines liberty, as a limitation of power; “By liberty, was meant protection against the tyranny of the political rulers. The rulers were conceived (except in some of the popular governments of Greece) as in a necessarily antagonistic position to the people whom they ruled.” (John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” Pg. 29) This limit on power is what he refers to as civil liberty; the limitation is put into play for the people, Mill acknowled...
Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.
In St. Augustine’s book entitled Political Writings, one could see that Christianity plays a very important role in his view of politics. His opinion on the morality or lack of morality in politics, to me makes it more evident that Christianity persuades his views. Although it seems his writings have become quite well known and admired, not everyone fully shared his beliefs. Niccolo Machiavelli, for instance, seemed to believe in a government that was not driven by morality, but more by practicality. In, The Prince, Machiavelli stresses that the moral fibers of government should not be so soft. Like St. Augustine, his work went on to become one of the most famous books ever written about politics. Throughout the two works there are some similarities and differences regarding politics, however it their view of Christianity and morality that many find most intriguing.
(7) H. L., Hart, The Concept of Law, ch. VIII, and D., Lyons, Ethics and the rule of law, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 78 ff,
John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus on his ideas of the harm principle and touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom of action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts on the concept of liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts of the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained.
Carus, Paul. The Canon of Reason and Virtue. The Open Court Publishing Company, La Salle, Illinois: 1954
John Locke, Berkeley and Hume are all empiricist philosophers. They all have many different believes, but agree on the three anchor points; The only source of genuine knowledge is sense experience, reason is an unreliable and inadequate route to knowledge unless it is grounded in the solid bedrock of sense experience and there is no evidence of innate ideas within the mind that are known from experience. Each of these philosophers developed some of the most fascinating conceptions of the relationships between our thoughts and the world around us. I will argue that Locke, Berkeley and Hume are three empiricists that have different beliefs.
John Locke and Socrates both have two distinctive and compelling arguments about what the social contract is. While government’s today extract ideas from both theories of the social contract, it’s is hard to determine which is the just and appropriate. While there is little comparison between the two theories other than fact that there must be a relationship between the government and the people for a society to exist, there are several opposing ideas in these arguments. First, the Socrates idea of an implicit social contract versus Locke’s explicit social contract. Secondly, Socrates believes laws make the society and in contrast, Locke believes society makes the law. Finally, Socrates believes the very few educated persons or minority
Arthur, John, and Scalet, Steven, eds. Morality and Moral Controversies: Readings in Moral, Social, and Political Philosophy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Eighth Edition, 2009.
According to philosophers, there are four types of law that guide morality and behavior for humans. Eternal, divine, natural and civil laws all contribute to the quality of life for mankind, but these laws often get confused with each other. This paper will examine two instances of a clash between the civil laws of government and divine laws of religious conviction.
Scholars Press, Atlanta : 1991. Armand Maurer. Being and Knowing: Studies in Thomas Aquinas and Later Medieval Philosophers, Papers in Mediæval Studies, no. 10. Pontifical Institute of Mediæval Studies, Toronto : 1990. Thomas Aquinas.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.