 |
| Author: |
| jordan |
| Blog URL: |
|
http://www.handshakesdemo.com/blogs/require
|
| Tags: |
| draw stand door letter been part ship life unit hot |
| Description: |
| Hobbes claims that in most cases a citizen does not have the duty to make the safety and ends of the state the motive of his or her voluntary death. The right of a man to defend himself in the face of death or injury can not be taken away, because if it is the Right of Nature for each man "to use his own power, as he will himselfe, for the preservation of his own Nature, that is to say his own life" (Hobbes 189). The prisoner being led to death by his jailers has the right and obligation to resist |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Dewey wanted to be as naturalistic as Locke and as historic as Hegel. This can indeed be done. One can say with Locke that the causal process that go in the human organism suffice, without the intrusion of anything non-natural, to explain the acquisition of knowledge (moral, mathematical, empirical, and political). One can only say, with Hegel, that rational criticism of knowledge-claims is always in terms of the problems that human beings face at a particular epoch. These two lines of thought neither intersect nor conflict. Keeping them separate has the virtue of doing just what Dewey wanted to do-preventing the formulation of the traditional, skeptically motivated "problems of epistemology." (Rorty, qtd, in Cahn P. 82)
Hobbes also seems to assume that the natural position of man is one of chaos where everyone has right to everything and might makes right. It seems to me that this idea is questionable. Can mankind in general ever live in chaotic disunity? Was there ever such a time as when man did not cooperate for continued survival. If not, then it seems rash to conclude that a breakage of a social covenant leads into such a state. For example, even when rebels oust a government and institute a new one, they do so not out of chaos, but out of a new and different order.
|
|
|
 |
|
|