Friday, May 14th (Hybrid day a.k.a. "senior skip day")
Compare and contrast how Marx views the social contract and whether you can or should break it with Locke's view of the social contract. With whom do you agree more? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Well starting off with Locke, he believes that social contract is only there to have the government proctect the citizen's rights. He thinks that people, in their natural state, are civilized and basically nice with one another. He feels that there is really no need for a social contract but it does provide for extra protection of a citizen's natural rights. Where as Marx on the other hand believes in communism. He thinks that eveyone is equal and when eveyone is considered equal then they should all recieve the same rights. I had trouble knowing whether or not Marx would allow breaking of the social contract theory. But I came to the conclusion that he would be for it if it needed to maintain every person's equality. For example people give up their right to private property, which would be considered a natural right under Locke. But in turn every citizen would, lets say, recieve one identical block of land. Personally I agree more with Locke. I tend to lean more towards his thoughts because I also think that people are overall civilized and can function without government if nessecary. But I do think that having a government is a good thing to ensure equal protection of natural rights.
Locke believed people willingly came together to form a social contract for the benefit of all the people, and therefore create a state. It was there to ensure everyone's safety, and Locke believed people still had some natural rights under the contract. Locke wouldn't agree with breaking the social contract because he believed it was originally created to benefit the people, and so it wouldn't make sense that he would want to break that.
Marx, on the other hand, believed that the only fair way to be governed was to ultimately do away with government completely, and have the people govern themselves. He wanted to get rid of private property and anything that would put one group of people above the other. He wanted equality among the people, and equality for him mean swiping away all social status and government. Therefore, I think Marx would not agree with the social contract. The whole idea of the social contract is to bring people under a government for the betterment of society. Marx doesn't like the idea of government controlling the masses, and would rather have the masses govern themselves. Because of that, Marx would be against the social contract.
I personally agree with Locke. Although Marx idea of the people governing themselves seems just fine and dandy, I don't think it would work out in the end. I think people need some sort of government in control to ensure that things don't get out of control. Although Marx would argue that the government above everyone else would eventually cause chaos, I would argue that not every person is fit enough to govern themselves, and eventually that would cause chaos. Also, I believe eventually disputes would arise between those governing themselves.
John Locke believed that there was a government by the people and for the people, and his ideas were a large part of the fundamental basis for United States government. He believed that the people lost certain rights when they entered into the social contract with the government so that they would get others guaranteed protected. He believed that when they weren't getting those rights protected by the government, they could break the social contract and change the government. The reason he believed in this social contract was because he wanted people to have their personal property rights protected.
This is completely different from Marx who doesn't believe in personal property rights at all. He believes that this system of a social contract with government to help protect property works into the hands of those who are in the elite especially because it is the elite who are the ones who essentially run the government (look at the United States and the founding fathers) he thinks that everyone should have equivalent stuff based on their need. No one should be entitled to Private Property.
I'm somewhere in between between the two of these. I personally believe in Marx's ideas of from everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their need. However, this doesn't really workout in reality. I'm more of a democratic socialist, which Marx believed was one step on the way to true communism, but I don't believe the idea of true communism will really work on a large scale, I think that there can be spin offs of it, but I like the idea of a reform in what we have now instead of turning society upside down and hurting a lot of people. Right now, a lot of people are happy in our society and some people aren't. I think we should focus on making the living situation better for those who aren't happy now instead of chancing way more people being screwed over in a completely new society. However, other places are different so I don't think this is necessarily true for everyone.
Marx thinks the social contract is unfair because it is biased to the rich who are able to control the proceedings. He thinks the social contract is used to control the workers and keep them in their place. Marx thinks that people must revolt against government to try to create a communist state. He thinks that no government is justified because it will always support the ruling classes and continue the alienation. Locke thinks the social contract can be very beneficial and can be very fair. However, he supports the right of people to revolt if the government does not fulfill their part of the social contract. He thinks that government can protect people, but the people should be able to revolt and get a new system if the government fails to protect their rights. I agree more with Locke because I agree that a good state can help to protect people's rights. I think a state can help create order and can provide protection of certain rights to people. I don't think a state will always be biased to the rich- I think it can be good. Therefore, I don't think that we should always revolt against the government just because it is a government.
Well, Marx likes the social contract theory as long as it only applies to citizens of a communist government. He thinks that the rights you receive under communism are fair, so the social contract is worth it. But under capitalism, the rights you receive are definitely unfair in his view, therefore the people have the right to revolt and overthrow the capitalist government that is oppressing them. So under a capitalist gov't, he thinks that you can break the social contract theory, but not under a communist gov't. Locke, however, thinks it is okay to overthrow the government whenever they aren't properly representing the people. I agree with Locke more just because all types of government are prone to a certain degree of corruption and I think that people should always have the right to get rid of a gov't that isn't doing its job.
Marx views the social contract as a way for the rich to control the poor- while still allowing the poor to maintain the illusion that the poor have some control over their own fate. He believes it should be thrown down violently. Locke believes that the social contract is a means by which some rights of the people are taken away that others may be protected. In times of trouble, it can be broken if it is not accomplishing the job. I strongly disagree with Marx, whereas I merely disagree with Locke. Marx would take away all protection of rights on the assumption that people are basically good and won't harm each other- but the reason he takes away all protection of rights is because the people at the top are basically bad. Does this add up? Obviously not. If people can be bad one way, it is very reasonable to assume they can be bad other ways. Many people are basically good- but this cannot be applied to the entire world.
On the other hand, we have Locke.He believes that the state exists solely to protect certain rights. As Olen points out though, this leads to a minimalist state, which has a great many disadvantages and much fewer advantages. The rich ride roughshod over the poor, and the basically bad can still harm people in general- the difference is that a few more rights are protected.
If I had a choice, I would opt for Rawls' Veil of Ignorance or some form of meritocracy- but these, alas, aren't too terribly likely to come around short of a complete turnabout in society's direction, and even then, they'll be imperfect, and again those darned basically bad people find some way to go hog wild.
Sigh... Please excuse my horrid pessimism...
Marx is against the social class as of now. He thinks that there shouldn't be people with a greater advantage of things because of their family, job, or possessions. I think if the social contract gave people equal rights, then he would agree with it more. Marx's goal for the people is for everyone to be middle class. No one too rich, no one too poor. He also wanted to get rid of private properties since it put some classes over another. As of now, it's hard to change from a lower class to a higher class, no matter how hard you work. Some do make it and that's where Locke comes in.
John Locke likes the social contract. He thinks if there were no government, people could still handle themselves, unlike Marx. The social contract is just there to give up some bad rights to guarantee others. He thinks if you want to work hard, get rich, and become higher than others, go for it. Otherwise, you're content being in a lower class and not working so hard, that's fine too.
I personally agree with Locke's view more. I think think that given the chance, you can be anything you want to. You just have to work as hard as you want to work. Also I think a society where were all equal wouldn't work because people are almost always trying to become better than some in one way or another.
Marx disagrees with the social contract theory. He doesn’t like the idea of the government being controlled by the rich and well off, and thinks that everyone should be equal with equal access. Marx believes that the social contract is another way to keep the workers down and use them as slaves. Locke said that when people entered a state of social contract with their government, they gave up certain rights but in return gained protection from the government. Locke believes more firmly in a social contract, because he thinks that people deserve protection and that the state can give them that, in exchange for some freedoms. I agree with John Locke. I think that you give up a very small amount of freedom for a lot in return. The government asks you to drive a certain speed limit, and in exchange, they give you a road to drive on. Most of the freedoms we might give up help protect us anyways. I disagree with Marx because I think that parity in the world is inevitable. People will always look for an edge and if you don’t give them an easy one, they will go through worse methods to gain it.
Marx seems to believe that the social contract that you make with the government entitles the government to basically take away all you have in order to give equal amounts to everyone. He is not for personal property and he wants fairness by total equality and minimal work based benefits. This is very different from Locke who believed that you should give over some rights to the government in order to make the world a better place, and so the government can help you gain all of the rights you deserve. I think Locke's main point was that he wanted everyone to have an equal opportunity to do things and Marx just wanted everyone to be equal, period. I agree much more with Locke, as I would think most people living in the United States would. I understand what Marx is getting at, however I think his is a little too extreme to ever really work. To me, a huge part of equality is having an equal opportunity to work to make your life better. If everyone is simply given all of the same things, they may seem equal but in reality some will be working hard and not getting what they deserve while some won't be working at all and getting the same thing. I think it is a little better to have the government not regulate so tightly on things like this, and that we live in a world where you get what you work for, and you have the freedom to be successful or unsuccessful in your own life.
John Locke believed that the government should work for the needs of the people. He thought that it was the government's responsibility to rule for the people, and that if the government did not fulfill its' obligations, than the people have the right to revolt. Locke believes that it is alright that not everyone has the same resources, but as long as opportunities are the same, it is alright for people to live differently. Marx argued that there should be no private property, and that the role of the government is to ensure that everyone has the same lifestyle regardless of abilities. A key principle of Marxism is each according to his need and each according to his ability and I agree completely with that philosophy. I also think that a Marxist system would be flawed because he advocates for the overthrow of government, and without government, countries would not be able to defend themselves. Marx believes that the problem with social contract is that the rich and powerful end up having too much power, and I agree with that.
Locke believed that without the social contract, people lived in a state of nature where they are only bound by their own motives. He felt that people came together to form a social contract theory to create a state that would benefit everyone. It was there to ensure that everyone’s rights would be upheld, although they gave up a few under the state to ensure the others. Naturally, Locke would not agree with breaking the social contract theory because he is the one who came up with it, and it was originally created to benefit all people.
Marx believed in getting rid of all government and having people govern themselves. He was a strong believer in equality, so much so that he advocated getting rid of private property, social classes, and capitalism. I believe that Marx would disagree with the social contract. The social contract has individuals give up some rights and subject themselves to the jurisdiction of a government. Although this is done for the betterment of society, Marx would disagree with this because he does not believe in a government controlling individuals. He would rather have everyone take care of themselves.
In theory, Marx’s ideas make sense to me. Equality, freedom, everyone governing themselves: It sounds great! However, I think that in actuality this would not work because it’s likely that people would get out of control. Not everyone is fit to govern themselves, and people have their own selfish motives and interests. This would lead to inequality among society because people would probably end up turning against each other. So I personally agree with Locke because I believe the social contract theory is more practical.
Locke believed that people by people are naturally influenced by reason and tolerance and because of this government is only legitimate if the people agree to it. If they people do not agree or their rights are violated, Locke believed that people have the obligation to rebel against the government. On the other hand, we have Marx who believed in communism. Communism is where everyone is equal no matter the job they have. Marx would probably disagree with breaking the social contract because if broken not everyone will remain equal. I agree more with Locke because I believe most people are influenced by reason and tolerance except for a small number of people. Also, that if the people disagree with their government we should rebel and form a new one that protects our rights, which is the purpose of government. Not to make everyone exactly equal.
Marx's view of the social contract is one that seems much more specific to me than that of Locke's. Marx believed that the social contract is there to provide for each person according to their need, he did not think that one person should be above another person simply because of their ability to be, he believed that people should only have that which is according to their need and thus he did not think that it was allowable to have private property which would serve to raise someone higher than the others. Marx did not want to see an elite class above the others, but wanted a system of true fairness. Because Marx is a communist I feel that he would uphold the idea of the social contract in every situation except one in which rights were being denied somehow, or equality was not being achieved through a flaw in the social contract, in which case he would advocate breaking it. On the other hand, I do not believe that Locke would advocate breaking the social contract since he felt it was such a necessary installment in humanity and society. He believed that we all came together to protect one another and that it was fundamental to give up some freedoms to receive certain protections. With Locke's ideas,both the government and the people have their ends of the bargain to uphold and to break either end, would invalidate that societal necessity.
Personally I agree with Locke, because while the idea of ultimate equality and fairness do appeal to me, I also believe there is an inherent right to own private property. My own opinion as to the breaking of the social contract, is that I would personally advise against it in most if not all circumstances, as I believe that it is what keeps many in check and allows for a better quality of life. It sounds nice to have "to each according to their ability, and to each according to their need" and while I believe that all should have equal opportunity and needs accounted for, I don't think that necessarily is calling for a communistic sense of equality, so I would be against the breaking of the social contract.
Marx believed that the government shouldn't exist. He wanted people to be able to govern themselves, and for everyone to be equal. He felt that everything should be fair and equal. Locke believed that the social contract protected citizens' rights. He believed that people were genuinely good, and were able to take care of themselves. Locke wouldn't want the social contract broken because it protects rights that people may not know are there. Marx might be for breaking it because he is all for equality. His main idea was that all people should have access to the same things. I think that humans are able to function well together in society. But, I also feel that we need some sort of governing because we are in fact only human. Letting us have more than we can handle may cause problems in the long run.
Marx and Locke are very different philosophers. Locke believes that the social contract is beneficial. He looks at it and sees the government as protecting the rights of individuals, which in many cases our government does do. Marx sees the government in a different way. The government doesn't protect certain rights because he doesn't believe we have those rights to begin with. In contrast to Locke, he doesn't think individuals have the right to private property. This was a huge belief that Locke/Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers had, even if they only thought some were entitled to it.
I personally would not break from the type of government set up in America. Although I am really worried about our government right now (and have been for a while), it is not the TYPE of government we have. It is the people working our government, Republicans and Democrats alike. Those are just titles for "Elite" and "Elite". Some blame can be put on voters, though, for not truly demanding change. In the last election, we saw a demand for change, however, I would argue we got roughly the same thing we always get in a presidential election.
Anyways, I agree with Locke more. I do think everyone has a right to private property and other freedoms. I think living in a communist society would be awful. For me, there would be no incentive to work hard. I understand it's different for others and that's okay. It's not that I don't comprehend why communism is attractive to people, it does make sense in a lot of ways, I just don't agree with it.
Locke thought that people were good and they formed the social contract to protect their rights. Marx thought that the right social contract was that people worked hard and were equal. That way, people help others and get what they need. The big difference between the views is that the rights that Locke thought of included property, which Marx does not think people should have. I think that I agree more with Marx at times because in theory, Communism leads to a very happy, and full life where you never go without your needs. However, Locke's social contract appeals to me because it would mean I would have property and I would be able to get ahead and I would be protected. Both have good things about their theories so it is hard for me to choose.
Locke believes that the social contract is a good thing. It's fair and everyone can benefit from it. He also believes that the people have the right to rebel if the government is not holding up their end of the social contract. Marx, on the other hand, disagrees with the social contract. He feels it is unfair and gives the rich too much money, power and control, while only exploiting the poor. Marx believes that everyone should be equal, and that under the social contract no one is. The contract controls the working class unfairly, and he believes they should be able to revolt against the government and do their best to form a communist state in which everyone is equal. Government, in his eyes, is always bad. It can never be fair to everyone.
I agree more with Locke. While I understand Marx's point of view, I think government can be a good thing. When it is in corrupt hands and the hands of only the rich, I believe it exploits the poor and is bad for a country, but when there are decent people in power it is beneficial to everyone. The government can help out the poor and make things more fair and equal to everyone. While this may be idealist, I do agree more with Locke-his idea makes more sense. If one person gives something, the government needs to give back. I believes this is a good and realistic view of how the world works today.
Locke believed that people had certain rights to which in a perfect state of nature everyone would have, and it is the government's job to protect them when the people enter into an agreement with them which essentially creates the government. Marx on the other hand strongly believed in equality and that no one person should have more rights or an advantage over others. Locke would not be okay with breaking the social contract in my opinion, but Marx however i believe would if it mean that there was more equality and everything was fair. I tend to agree with Locke that in a perfect world the state of nature would work but i know that in today's realities of greed and violence thats not always the case. With Locke the government is serving the people and has the permission to use laws to enforce their rights. Marx takes too much of an extremist view. I think that it is impossible for everything to always be equal and fair, which is what i believe marx wants. No matter which way you try to make it work there is always some way that people will have a leg up over others
Locke believes that the social contract serves to protect the people's rights and maintain a balance between them and the government, where no one's rights are violated. He doesn't see it as totally necessary because he sees people as fundamentally good - inequalities in wealth and status are OK because people generally don't manipulate each other or take advantage of people beneath them. Marx, however, sees this social contract as giving preference to the wealthy, who he believes will take advantage of it and suppress the lesser citizens. So, his conclusion is that there should be no government or elite group - everyone should be on the same level, so that no one is oppressed. I think that Marx's communism looks good on paper, but wouldn't work in real life. There has to be someone in charge, or total chaos would ensue. Having a government doesn't mean that people are oppressed, it just means that there's some sort of order.
Marx views the social contract as an "instrument of oppression" by the ruling class. He feels that in economic as well as in natural rights the upper class is in power and there is no equality. Marx believed that a society was based on its economy. Therefore the ruling class was the one that was the most economically successful and had the most to loose. He believed very strongly that the working class should overthrow the upper class, and that oppression must be abolished. This is very different from Locke's view of the social contract because Locke believed that the social contract was necessary in order to have a successful and fully functioning society. Marx was a believer in communism, where there is no private property and one person is neither richer nor poorer than another person. This is commonly referred to as a classless society which has no government.
I agree more with Locke than with Marx. All utopian or communistic communities have ultimately failed. Also, in each situation there has been a "dictator" figure who has more power than another person. I think that this proves the fact that society needs leadership and rules in order to function successfully. In order to maintain peace and quality of life people must have certain limits placed upon them, and be able to have goals. Locke's social contract allows for competition which is a very important feature of a healthy society. Marx's views do not allow for this, and I feel that this is why communism has failed so badly, and why it will never succeed in the future.
Marx and Locke both agreed that the government and the citizens make an agreement called a social contract. The difference is they both have different opinions of what exactly the government should protect. Locke believes that the government should protect the natural rights of the citizens. Locke does not think the social contract does much, but provides extra protection of the rights the people already have. Marx has a different communist prospective. He believes everyone is equal in every way. Everyone should be treated the same way: no extra advantages or disadvantages. There would be no higher government. In his perfect world, the people would run it themselves.
I more agree with Locke's point of view, because I believe there should be someone governing people. It creates more order in the world. I don't think the people could run the world on their own. It would become mass chaos. Locke lets the government run and protect the people's natural rights. The government really should only do that anyways. No dictatorship neccessary.
Locke's view on the social contract is that Locke wanted the government to be fair and equal towards everyone. Locke also believed that a country's people should have the right to revolt against the government if the government does not satisfy the needs of its people. Marx thought otherwise. He did not give his 100% trust in the inherent "good" of the government, especially if a ruling class was supporting a government. Marx thought that change was not going to be brought about by government. Instead, he thought that the government would only bring class struggles and problems with society. Eventually, there would be a revolution and revolt against the oppressing government. I agree with both because there are class differences, monetarily and qualitatively (means of living), in the United States. There are homeless and poor people and rich people and the people in between. The government does not do much to solve this super hard equation, where all the variables should be equal in those two aspects. Then again, we need the government to control certain things within the country, like implement and enforce laws on people, though there is inequality in that sense, too.
Post a Comment