Assignment help

新西兰奥克兰代写作业:哲学严谨的角度

从哲学严谨的角度来看,洛克的辩护是对构建规范框架的一种逃避。但在描述层面上,他可能是正确的:霍布斯和洛克都同意,人类是通过理性超越自然状态,进入主权状态的。对这两种自然状态的基本比较可以归结为这样一个事实霍布斯的解释是从缺乏理性开始的洛克的解释是从被创造者编入人类的理性开始的。难道洛克的自然状态不可能简单地遵循霍布斯的吗?事实上,在霍布斯的模型中,人在进入社会契约之前必须先找到理性,也就是说,作为一个集体,他们最终必须达到洛克自然状态的某种形式。无论上帝是否存在,社会意识的发展都是两位作者继续其理论的前提。这又回到了前面第四段提出的认识论矛盾:如果人们需要达到这种理性思考的水平才能接受社会契约,那么为什么他们会丧失分析臣服于君主的好处的能力呢?因为霍布斯忽略了这个问题,但是洛克回答了这个问题(尽管是上帝,而不是理性的发展,就像我说的),洛克对主权的解释更有说服力。

新西兰奥克兰代写作业:哲学严谨的角度

From a philosophically rigorous perspective, Locke’s justifications are a copout to constructing a normative frame. But at a descriptive level, he may be correct: both Hobbes and Locke agree that it is through reason that mankind transcends the state of nature and enters a state of sovereignty. An elementary comparison of these two versions of the state of nature boils down to the fact that Hobbes’s interpretation is one that begins with a lack of reason and Locke’s starts with reason programmed into mankind by a maker. Is it not possible that the Locke’s state of nature simply follows Hobbes’s? Indeed, in Hobbes’s model, man must come upon reason prior to entering the social contract, meaning as a collective, they must eventually reach some form of Locke’s state of nature. Whether God exists or not, a social consciousness must develop for both authors to successfully continue their theories. This returns us to the epistemological contradiction presented earlier in the fourth paragraph: why do men lose their ability to analyze the benefits of subjugation to a sovereign, if they needed to attain this level of rational deliberation to have accepted the social contract to begin with? It is because Hobbes ignores this concern, but Locke answers it (albeit with God, rather than a development of rationality, as I suggest), that Locke’s interpretation of sovereignty is far more convincing.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注