State of nature according to political theory looks into life of human beings before or without political
Name
Course
Professor
Date
Rousseau
State of nature according to political theory looks into life of human beings before or without political political authority. There are several theorists that have been linked with these theory in examining the justification as well as the limits associated with political authority including Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. According to Rousseau, state of nature is a morally neutral as well as a peaceful condition whereby the solitary individuals are able to act according to the urges they feel such as hunger. He argued that individuals became civilized by becoming dependent on one another. In state of nature, natural inequality occurs including age, strength, and height. On enlighten, Rousseau believed that as humans we were free to do anything however our impulses and desires are not interfered with reason. In the transition from state of nature to civil state, humans are able to substitute their justice for instincts therefore it gives the action a man does moral quality. The fact that a man is able to improve himself and adapt to a situation presented to him, creates enlightens as well as his virtues. This however also contributes to his vices and his miseries as well. Perfectibility according to Rousseau draws a man out of his current condition giving him extraordinary ability.
Life and Consciousness.
When Marx states life is not determined by consciousness but rather consciousness by life, he is arguing that the beliefs as well as the ideas that human have or rather can form, are dependent on various factors including both economic and social circumstance. Consciousness may need raw awareness or perspective that we have as humans. While the consciousness of men is consciousness of social grouping, a person’s social-economic distinction determines how they view themselves. A good example is that the ideas of a slave owner are likely to be different as compared to ideas of the employer of free labour, also ideas of people who have inherited properties from their family is likely to be different from ones who have worked every day to get to where they are. Marx critically thought and analyzed the theory to mean it is not what individuals think that decides their reality but rather it is the occurrences of life that guide people’s thinking and the extent to which they can think and act. Human beings behavior is determined by the events occurring in their surrounding and it goes to the extent of deciding the capacity of the thoughts. The social being of individuals determines their consciousness.
The philosopher tried to show that an individual’s consciousness is something that is tied to their social or economic class; one cannot be separated from, and in that, regard the consciousness of a person is highlighted as the consciousness of their social groupings. Thus, it is not an individualized and isolated consciousness of men that determines their existence and sense of self, but a social existence based on socio- economic reality that defines their consciousness, or sense of self. For Marx, history is an unfolding of this dialectic between those groups that have wealth and those who don’t.
On Liberty
Tyranny of majority has been used to elaborate on democracy where the majority rule ignoring the views of the minorities in the society. Tranny of majority takes place when the majority people decide to subjugate the minority. Through the tyranny of the majority, minority group or an unflavored group was more likely to be targeted by the majority and oppressed and this would likely occur even in a democratic system. They tend to take decisions that favor them instead of what is best for everyone. This leads to the oppression of the minority group when compared to the despots or the tyrants Mill argue. Mill thought that the minority would not be able to enjoy freedom in life including freedom of speech. The minority were likely not to be heard to or have a platform to express them because of the majority rule
Harm principle proposed by Mill asserts that individuals should be left to do as they like as long as they do not cause harm. It is because if these challenges displayed on tyranny of numbers that Mill introduced social liberty, which meant limiting rulers, powers o that they may not abuse their powers for their own wishes leading to harm in the society. In other words what he meant was that other people would have assay on how the government carried itself and how to carry out their day to day activities. His view on liberty was that individuals need to be free to do what they want as long as they do not harm other people. Mill on Liberty argues that freedom of speech was key in taming the despots or tyrannical government. It allowed, “Searching for and discovering of truth” (Mill) as a way of gaining knowledge. Through freedom of speech, it allowed debate and public participation through the public policy.
An example that supports Mills Principe is arresting of a thief. A thief will often be arrested for stealing or breaking the law. Although he is allowed to do whatever he wants, his action causes harm thus he needs to be arrested. However, mill feels that an individual who steels a valid reason i.e. to put food on the table needs to be treated differently when compared to one who does it for fun. An example against would be where the majority establishes their rule over the minority constantly. For example in Rwanda Hutu who were the majority and in government subdued the Tutsi who were the minority by killing them. According to Mill the powers of the Hutu were clearly not limited and they felt they had the right to subdue the minority.
