Has Modern Liberalism Abandoned Individualism and Embraced Collectivism
Has Modern Liberalism Abandoned Individualism and Embraced Collectivism The core of Liberalist thinking is the primacy of the individual and that a political system should always be constructed out of the needs of, and respect for the individual. Liberals have always had an atomistic view of the individual, believing that the individual should have the freedom to pursue their interests as fully as possible. This view has not changed and as such Modern Liberalism has not abandoned individualism in favour of collectivism it has merely changed its views in the way to achieve it. After the Civil War of 1640 with the dissolution of the Divine Right of Kings, Liberalism became to become a more prevalent ideology. One of the first liberal thinkers was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), in his work 'Leviathan' he believed the only way with which individuals would be able to achieve their own individual goals would be under a large and imposing government. He felt human nature was 'Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.' Hobbes had a very pessimistic view of human nature and believed that rational human beings should respect their government as without it society would descend into a civil war 'Of every man against every man' in the pursuit of their own individualist goals. Hobbes put forward the idea of a One Way Social Contract. John Locke (1632-1704), the philosopher of the
Brothers in Arms" An analysis of an instance of collective behaviour as it relates to the: Afrikaner Weerstand Bewegi
"Brothers in Arms" An analysis of an instance of collective behaviour as it relates to the: Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging "Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from my mouth and give them warning from me. Ezekiel 33:7 Introduction Sociology according to Weber seeks to make sense of an "infinite multiplicity of successively and coexistently emerging and disappearing events"1 furthermore Weber argues that we undertake analysis as it is relevant to the interests of our own cultural generation". In today's world, terror and the use of force to achieve goals has become a global problem. It is therefore with interest that I present this report which undertakes an analysis of collective behaviour as it relates to the: Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging (AWB). From a suburban garage the Afrikaner Weerstand Beweging AWB (Afrikaner Resistance movement) burgeoned into an organisation that attracted worldwide attention to its cause and became a thorn in the side of the South African Government to an organisation which is now almost obsolete. The report will scrutinize the motivations, and driving force which created the formation, development, and eventual iconisation of the AWB into a resistance movement prepared to use severe force to achieve their goals. The methodology I employed in this study investigates the
An unequal distribution of social goods could not be a just distribution. Discuss.
'An unequal distribution of social goods could not be a just distribution.' Discuss. In order to tackle the question at hand it is at first essential to work with given definitions of what a 'social good' is and also what 'just' means. A basic definition of a social good according to John Rawls is "The primary social goods, to give them in broad categories, are rights, liberties, and opportunities, and income and wealth"1 To simplify the question in hand I will assume that the set in stone definition of unequal is something that is not of the same quantity, quality, value or rank as the previous distribution of a good to someone else. Given this explanation we need to distribute social goods in the most just and efficient way regardless of whether it is unequal, the distribution needs to be just according to John Rawls and Robert Nozick.2'3 Robert Nozick and John Rawls both have different views on what 'just' is so I will look at both accounts to demonstrate a more comprehensive conclusion. In his book Theory of Justice John Rawls gives his account on distributive justice. He argues distributive justice is based on the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage between individuals.4 Justice is the most important political value and according to Rawls it applies to the all institutions that govern and serve that society. 5 So in order for these
Is civil disobedience undemocratic?
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." War and Peace (Bondarchuk, 1968) The influences of Socrates and Thoreau have push and pulled the debate on whether civil disobedience is justified in a democratic state. To start answering the question we must first define civil disobedience and the notion of being democratic. Civil disobedience is a group's refusal to obey a law because they believe the law is immoral (Princeton, no date). Democracy can further be described as a form of government in which state-power is held by the majority of citizens within a country (Wikipedia, no date). Therefore, being democratic means respecting the idea of majority rule. Montesquieu (1748) went even further and promoted the idea that in a democracy; the executive, legislative and judicial powers of the state had to be separated or risk being an authoritarian regime. This essay will argue in favour of Thoreau (1847, as cited in Bedau 1991: 28-48), putting forward that civil disobedience is part of democracy and therefore cannot be undemocratic. As advanced by Rawls (1971), civil disobedience must follow certain key characteristics to distinguish itself from pure criminality. "In breaking the law, the civilly disobedient are addressing, or appealing to, the sense of justice of the majority." (as cited in Hoffman and Graham, 2009: 439) Unlike conscientious
Offer an analysis of chapter 13 of Hobbess Leviathan.,. Your analysis might include the following: What are the crucial elements contributed by this chapter? What does Hobbes understand by our natural condition?Are there any unwarranted ass
Assignment 2.Offer an analysis of chapter 13 of Hobbes's Leviathan. You should use continuous prose for this, not bullet points or a list. Your analysis might include the following: . What are the crucial elements contributed by this chapter? 2. What does Hobbes understand by our natural condition? 3. Are there any unwarranted assumptions or logical inconsistencies in the argument in this chapter? Can you identify any inconsistencies in Hobbes' reasoning? 4. Do you find the claims advanced here especially convincing or flawed? If so, why? Thomas Hobbes, an English Philosopher from the 17th century, wrote a book on the topic of human nature and also its connection to the government. In chapter 13 of Hobbes Leviathan, Hobbes talks about how men of nature are all equal to one another. All men are similar as "Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind"1. People are all created biologically alike, though some may be smarter or stronger than others; we all possess the ability to learn. With time, everyone will be able to know what everyone else knows, particularly if everyone commits themselves to learning about everything which can be obtained and known. Hobbes goes on to say, "from this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends"2 . Since every man is formed equally, they are also created with the wishes and
Are Human Rights Universal
Are Human Rights universal? Human rights proponents assert that all human beings are guaranteed certain rights ranging from the right to life and freedom from torture to socio-economic rights such as the right to healthcare and education. The introduction of human rights is a fairly new phenomenon and can be traced back to the French revolution. More recently, following some of the worst events and atrocities of World War II such as the German concentration camps, the Japanese treatment of the Chinese and even the allied bombings of Dresden, the issue of human rights came to the fore of world concern. The modern foundation of what people now view as human rights and the basis of 60 separate human rights instruments was established in the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights (UDHR) on the 10 December 1948. The declaration had big names behind it such as Eleanor Roosevelt who was a big proponent and it was drafted with the cooperation of several different countries not all developed countries but other third world countries such as Chile, Cuba and India partook in the drafting process as well, taking several years to complete. The issue of human rights is often in the news, most recently with the protests in Tibet against Chinese rule and the worldwide protests which followed. According to the west, China has had a long running problem with human rights abuses,
Legislature roles
Name : Saw Hsar Lwe Program : OUHK - Cetana (Myanmar) Course : SS201 Student No : 10399429 Assignment : TMA 03 Date : 8th, 8, 2010 If asked, nine times out of ten, I will say that the legislatures do not possess much power relative to the executives, although they play important roles in political processes and have power as the executives do. Political theorists declared that "liberty could be secured only if government were divided into two distinct branches, the legislative and the executive, with the ability to check and balance the other." Theoretically, the legislature enacts laws that allocate values for society, and the executive branch enforces the statutes passed by the legislature (Roskin, 2008). In terms of this, I firstly mange to describe the most important roles of legislature, then evaluate whether or not its roles are on the decline, and finally discuss the most crucial roles of the legislature and explain why these roles are the most vital for the legislature. Even though there are so many responsibilities or roles that the legislature has to function in the political process, based on Roskin textbook, I feel inclined to discuss only the main five important roles. They are: Lawmaking, Constituency Work, Supervision and Criticism of Government, Education, and Representation. When it comes right down to lawmaking, most in the democratic countries,
Analyse the ways in which Hardy and Lawrence make their respective fictional environments realistic in The Withered Arm and Odour of Chrysanthemums.
Antony Aleagha 10NAL Analyse the ways in which Hardy and Lawrence make their respective fictional environments realistic in The Withered Arm and Odour of Chrysanthemums Before I begin to analyse these stories, I feel it is important that I give short definitions of environment and realism. This will ensure that I tackle the question with greater accuracy. Environment can generally be defined as the physical surrounding, conditions and circumstances in which a person lives. Realism however, is a term used where fictional situations correspond to situations which occur in real life. Throughout this essay I am going to explore ways in which both writers portray realism in their stories and compare my findings. Firstly I am going to look at the settings of both stories as I feel this is a key feature, which adds realism to the stories. The setting of "The Withered Arm" is based in the south of England. The location for the majority of the story is the farm, which is mentioned quite frequently. Towards the beginning of the story we are given an immediate impact and the environment is immediately described. "It was an eighty-cow dairy". I find this quite useful as it immediately portrays realism by describing the setting giving us the capability of picturing the surroundings in our heads. I also feel that "Odour of Chrysanthemums" portrays realism to a great extent
What are the key features of sovereignty for Hobbes?
What are the key features of sovereignty for Hobbes, and how do they follow from his argument concerning the state of nature? Thomas Hobbes gives voice to the need of a higher authority by explaining what life would be with the absence of such an authority. He illuminates the picture of this state with no higher authority in big detail, showing the problems people would face in it. In order to get out of this state of insecurity, he suggests that people should give up their natural rights to a higher power and therefore this higher power will provide security for them, both internal and external. But in order this model to work he suggests that sovereignty should be absolute, therefore the authority gives all the rules and principle by which the organization of life will be made. He is the one which possesses the power. With this power he can protect its people from outside dangers but it also can punish the individuals who do not obey its rules. The sovereign must be also the higher authority in its territory because a conflicts between it and other powers cannot be resolved. Hobbes concept of sovereignty comes as an answer to the problem of insecurity and violence in the state of nature. By the mutual agreement between the people to give their rights and to erect this higher power they gain security over their lives and property. The sovereign power which is made as Hobbes
'Do Anarchist demand the impossible'.
'Do Anarchist demand the impossible' Anarchism is summed up by their belief in Utopianism. A utopia literally means an ideal or perfect society. Utopianism is a style of political theorising that develops a critique of the existing order by constructing a model if an ideal or perfect alternative. Utopian theories are usually based on assumptions about the unlimited possibilities of human self-development. However, utopianism is often used as a pejorative term to imply deluded or fanciful thinking, a belief in an unrealistic and unachievable goal. Anarchist demand what others believe to be impossible but what they believe is possible. The most important theory of utopianism is its highly optimistic view of human nature. It is believed that if human beings have the capacity to build a perfect society to live in, then they are perfect or perfect able. There are within anarchism two views about human nature. One put forward by the Individualist Anarchist and the other by Collectivist Anarchists. Collectivist Anarchists believe human nature is rooted in socialist assumptions, about human beings being essentially social creatures. This has two implications. First, Collectivist Anarchists stress nurture over nature and argue that anti-social. Impulses such as selfishness, greed and aggression are not innate but are a reflection of a corrupt society that promotes and rewards
