|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Author: |
evan |
| Blog URL: |
http://www.handshakesdemo.com/blogs/defend
|
| Tags: |
boy car again beauty most mark far over said answer |
| Description: |
Subsequently, Hume's argument focuses on human testimony and the hesitation that mankind feels regarding the credibility of others' statements. He states that this hesitation stems from the "…Opposition of contrary Testimony; from the Character or Number of the Witnesses; from the Manner of their delivering their Testimony; or from the Union of all these Circumstances." The testimony from human beings is therefore not accepted by the rest of the population as free from doubt or questioning.
Locke's |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Locke's concept of the state of nature, however, is equally questionable with that of Hobbes. When Locke delves into the question of property, he reasons well in his differentiation between the property of mankind and the property of a man. He even skirts on Marx's labor theory of value. It is interesting to compare Locke's theories with contemporary capitalist societies which claim to have a basis in Locke. I see little similarity between the two. Slavery (chattel and wage), exploitation, limited popular access to government, and social priorities which benefit a select part of society all challenge the west's claim to a Locke-style government system.
Mill answers these objections brilliantly. The part of the person's actions others should be concerned with is the damage the actions do to others. A person who is a drunk and fails to meet his family obligations, therefore hurting his family, should be punished. The punishment, however, is for failing to meet his family obligations not for being a drunk. Mill writes:
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList