Great Ideologies Stemming Out From Chaos Essay Example for Free

Great Ideologies Stemming Out From Chaos Essay Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Paine, three great political philosophers, all view the nature of man and society as anarchical, which is a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority, making it â€Å"war of all against all†. The utopian society of individuals enjoys complete freedom without government, wherein there is a display of a lack of morality for most of the time. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes presented the political state as a Leviathan—a sea monster. As a metaphor for the state, it is described as a replica of a person whose body is made up of all the bodies of its citizens, who are the literal members of the Leviathans body, and placing the sovereign as the head. In order for them to escape this natural condition, the people in the state constructed the Leviathan through social contract wherein they give up certain natural rights and transfer them to another person of authority. In turn, the power of the Leviathan protects them from the abuses of one another. The source of inequality comes from the scarcity of resources. If one looks around at other animals—Hobbes specifically notes ants and bees—they appear to live harmoniously with one another without any sort of state or society. If they can do so, then why cant men who are, after all, â€Å"animals† themselves? Hobbes discussed several reasons as to why men cannot live this way: the main one being that men are rational creatures. If we lived in some pre-societal concord with others, reason would always devise ways for us to cheat and make ourselves better off than others in order for us to survive. Furthermore, as we humans possess speech, we are able to mislead one another about our wants and desires. Hobbes also claims that animals naturally agree with one another while humans do not, and the reason for this essentially is because man is competitive in nature and therefore views everyone around him as a threat. Therefore, the government is created to provide order and regulation. For Hobbes, the best form of government is monarchy for four reasons: first, since humans will always choose the private over the public good, the best way to ensure peace when choosing a sovereign is to have these united. And by the outweighing of private good over public ones, infighting and corruption within government is encouraged. Second, having a secret counsel is allowed in a monarchy as opposed to in a democracy or aristocracy. Third, a monarchy is more consistent: since the monarch is one person and humans are not perfectly consistent, the commonwealth changes only as human nature dictates. In a democracy and aristocracy, because more natural bodies compose the sovereign, the commonwealth is more subject to human inconsistency as well as the inconsistency that comes from a change in the makeup of the sovereign, which happens with each election cycle or new member of the aristocracy. Lastly, infighting or warring factions caused by envy, self-interest, or any other human imperfections cannot be seen in a monarchy. On the other hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau views the government as an abomination because it interferes with the nature of man. His aim is to examine the foundations of inequality among men, and to determine whether this inequality is authorized by natural law. He attempts to demonstrate that modern moral inequality, which is created by an agreement between men, is unnatural and unrelated to the true nature of man and that it is necessary to consider human nature and to chart how that nature has evolved over the centuries to produce modern man and modern society. Like Hobbes, he describes man as just another animal, and this proves to be very important. The distinction between human and animal was used both to justify mans possession and use of the Earths resources, and to explain why humans apparently have certain unique capabilities, such as reason and language. He further expounds that man is like yet unlike other animals, due to the unique way he develops. And as time goes by, human faculties were being fully developed. To be and to appear became two different things. Man became subjugated by a multitude of new needs, especially by his need for other men. Man became a slave to men as one takes pleasure in domination and tries to be their master. However, this is only true for the rich. When the powerful claims a right to another persons goods, such as the right of property, the inequality can lead to a state of war. Therefore, the rich tried to persuade the weak, who were indeed easily convinced, to unite with them into a supreme power to institute rules of justice and peace. Men ran towards their chains in the belief that they were securing their freedom, while those who did know about the deceit thought that they could trade part of their freedom for security. Although his idea sounds wrong, it essentially represents a point at which the self-preservation and pity of savage man are perfectly balanced with the acute regard for oneself in relation to others of modern man. Some aspects of reason and communal life are good, but they are still potentially destructive. In criticizing civility and concern for others as negative features of society, Rousseau goes against the good manners and civility that are generally seen as restraining the savage features of man, as he feels that there is nothing to restrain in natural man, and civility only makes men compare themselves to one another. As for Thomas Paine’s The Rights of Man, he justifies the principles of modern republican governments. He attacks the notion of monarchy and privilege and argues that each generation has the right to establish its own system of government. No nation can legally be ruled by a hereditary monarchy because government is for the living and not the dead. No generation has the right to establish a government binding on future generations. He argues that humankind can reach its full potential under republican governments which would allow individuals to live free of privilege and caste. To sum it all up, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Paine put forward an idea of how the government sprung from inequality and lack of a central world authority. For Hobbes, an absolute monarchial government ruled by one person only, is necessary to fulfill the society’s need for order and the regulation of its people so that society can avoid from spiraling into anarchy. As for Rousseau, a government having biases towards the rich while deceiving the poor was created so that the insecurities of the people would force them in order to perpetuate inequality which make them dependent on the government, giving it more power. Lastly, for Paine, a representative and democratic government is formed to protect the people’s rights to be protected and to safeguard them from the threat of chaos, allowing the people to create an environment where they can mature and achieve their potential. Despite the differences in some parts of their ideologies such as the sources of inequality and the roles of the government, a single goal is presented—that is, for the creation of a concept of government in order to prevent the society from turning back to its nature of anarchism. While Hobbes’ â€Å"one-man rule† could lead to abuse of power, his intention is for this monarchial type of government to administer order and self-preservation in the society. As for Rousseau, the maintenance of an inequality between social classes assures the stabilization of finite resources and society itself. Lastly, for Paine, his ideal world of a representative-democratic government lies on the belief that environmental influences create the individual and that a benevolent form of government can bring about human happiness. Putting them together, their main objective can be viewed as the organization and harmonization of society so as to push it towards progression. References: (n.d.). Rights of Man. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from http://www.enotes.com/rights-man salem/rights-man SparkNotes Editors. (n.d.). SparkNote on Discourse on Inequality. Retrieved December 20, 2012, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/inequality/

Hamlet :: essays research papers

Soliloquies make us understand the true feelings that someone is feeling. It unlocks the secret of the mind. What are soliloquies? â€Å" A literary or dramatic form of discourse in which a character talks to himself or reveals his thoughts in the form of a monologue without addressing a listener†. Specific soliloquies illustrate what really goes on in Hamlet’s mind, and also other characters in the play. Hamlet is a very complicating character, and the only way we can actually understand him is through his soliloquies. â€Å"O, that this too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew†¦Ã¢â‚¬ (page 31), in this soliloquy, its like he’s saying that he wants to melt inside earth like water into the ground. Hamlet expresses here his feelings towards his mother marrying his uncle, two months after the death of his father. â€Å"How weary stale, flat and unprofitable seem to me all the uses of the world â€Å"(page 31). This quote shows the attitude Hamlet uses towards life, he is saying that the world is stale, it has no taste left. Hamlet is showing his pessimistic side in him in this soliloquy. When the ghost of Hamlet’s father reveals to Hamlet who killed him, Hamlet becomes more complicating, he becomes furious. â€Å"†¦That one may smile and be a villain atleast I’m sure it may be so in Denmark† (page 69) in this soliloquy Hamlet shows his feelings towards Claudius, that Claudius is smiling to show that he is nice when he isn’t. In this soliloquy we also understand more about Hamlets character that he tends to be sarcastic and a bit hysterical. Another soliloquy that shows us Hamlets feelings is the one after Hamlet finds out that Rosencrants and Guildenstern were trying to spy on him for Claudius. â€Å"What a rogue and peasant slave I am†¦am i a coward?†¦but i am a pigeon livered and lack gall† (page 125) Hamlet shows here his anger that he has to himself for not taking yet revenge against his father’s killer. He’s basically saying in this quote that he has no courage. Therefore this soliloquy reveals to the readers that deep inside Hamlet isn’t courageous. â€Å" Why what an ass am I.. the son of the dear murdered prompted to my revenge by heaven and hell, must like a whore unpack my heart with words. At the end of this soliloquy, Hamlet reveals his plan to reenact the killing of his father to see Claudius’s reaction.

Quote from Hamlet Essay

â€Å"Thus conscience does make cowards of us all†. These words said by Hamlet are very strong in meaning and really do make a lot of sense. I agree with this quote. I really do believe that a person’s guilty conscience may cause them to have fear of doing what is right or of telling another person the truth or what needs to be said. A person’s conscience is what tells the person what is right and it lets the person know when he or she has committed something that is morally wrong. A conscience does not force the person to do anything, but it does let them know when they are wrong and this guilt can lead the person to act in different ways. A guilty conscience is extremely difficult to deal with because no matter what you do or how you try to block out what you have on your mind, your conscience is always there letting you know that you have done something wrong. It is almost like carrying a 1,000-pound load on your back and trying to walk straight. It is nearly impossible to go on normally through the day with your guilty conscience knocking on your mind and never letting you rest. A conscience can also let a person know that he or she should not do something because it is wrong. In Hamlet’s case, he states that his conscience is letting him know that killing his uncle would be extremely wrong, and this is why he is acting like a coward and putting it off. I can’t really blame Hamlet for being afraid of killing somebody. Murdering somebody is a big deal and it can come with many consequences if you are caught. In a way, your conscience is like an interior parent who is looking out for you and letting you know all the right things to do so that you won’t regret doing anything wrong later. A guilty conscience can help out by scaring the person into doing what is right or into not doing what is wrong. Sometimes a person can want to do something that is wrong so badly, but his or her conscience won’t allow it. One night during the summer a friend of mine was home alone and she wanted me to sneak out of my house and go see her. I was both nervous and excited at the same time, but I knew that if I were to get caught I would be in so much trouble. I planned everything out  and waited for my parents to fall asleep that night before I started doing anything. Once they were asleep I snuck downstairs, grabbed the keys to one of my dad’s trucks, and made my way to the back of my house. I opened the door and my dogs started barking like crazy. That is what scared the hell out of me. I really thought that my parents were going to wake up and bust me. It scared me so much that I completely wussed out and called everything off. I decided that unless I was never going to be able to see the girl again that I shouldn’t risk getting caught and grounded for a really long time. So I just called my friend and told her that I would see her some other time. She understood completely and it turned out that she was just as scared as I was. My conscience made me act like a total coward, but it also saved me from getting a beating from my parents. Consciences are a part of life and they were created by God for a reason. In my opinion they serve a great purpose and can really help to clean up the wrongs of our world little by little. Guilty consciences should not be ignored because they are telling you what the right thing to do is. Of course not everybody will do the right thing, but one right is better than one wrong.

Microeconomics Income Inequality For Fast Foodservice...

Microeconomics: Income Inequality for Fast Foodservice Industry Income inequality is a very important concept to talk about when we really go deep into microeconomics. In the United States alone there are sectors that have income inequality that has been in our headline news for the past years, and to top off the list would be fast foodservice. There has been a lot of studies that looked into CEO-to-worker compensation ratios across all labor forces that show fast foodservice industry is the most unequal sector in American economy (Jaimeson, 2014). This inequality of wages can easily be explained and will be fully detailed in this paper. That is why it is important to look into cause of income inequity from a foodservice industry†¦show more content†¦We can see this inequality from CEO position having their pay doubled in 2009 for the decade of the year 1990s, which was quadrupled average pay than for the year 1980s.That was also eight times the CEO average for all the decad es if the mid-20th century. With this we can see over the years to decades we can see CEO pay has increased a lot more than expected to be, and still growing. Looking at hourly wages of non-corporate pay that has been the same since the early 1970s. Studies have shown between 1947 and 1972 it was said to have hourly wages only rose 76%, but ever since it has only risen 9% (Income Inequality, n.d.). While CEO pay has been growing exponentially, we can see other hourly pay hasn’t been increasing since the 1970’s which is hard to believe. CEO Pay Compares to Typical Workers According to a report created by Ruetschlin (2014) stating that compensation practices that is seen within companies of fast food industries is â€Å"out of line† with rest of our economy. We can see that CEOs have the greater and greater economic rewards while workers don’t seem to reap those rewards so luckily. In Ruestschlin studies, she was able to piece together that CEO average pay since 2000 has quadrupled in numbers than the typical workers. That in 2013, the average CEO took home a whopping $23.8 million dollars unlike typical works that doesn’t even have that much if we were to combine each worker in every food establishment. We can