Reply on these 5 answers philosophically

Reply on all these conversations Discussions?

Modern Philosophy Discussion

Thomas Hobbes claimed that we live under a social contract, in which we give up some

rights to the government in order to protect the rest of our rights. For example, we give up

our right to kill people in return for the government protecting us from being killed or,

should it happen, punishing the killer. John Locke claimed that we only loan rights to the

government, which can be taken back via the ballot box or, if necessary, by revolution if the

goverment governs against the people. Furthermore, he claimed that people had "certain

inalienable rights" such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (in the sense that one

has the right not to have one's property confiscated). How did these ideas radically change

the world, which had mostly been ruled by royalty who inherited titles and claimed a divine

right to rule?

1) These ideas changed the world by taking power from a small group of people who were only

in power because of bloodline. Some of the royalty of the time only did what was right for

them and did nothing for the people. The idea of a democracy gave the power to the people

of the society. By giving the power to the people we are able to place the right people into

power and remove the people who are not doing right for the people. When we live under a

social contract by giving up some rights to be protected from others does work to an extent

as long as the balance of give and take is equal. When the government tries to take more

than they give then it is time for a change.

2) This idea of having inalienable rights drastically changed society. This idea lays a

foundation for democracy, instead of being held under a monarchy. This allows

society to be what the people want and not what one person sees fit. It allows

society to always be changing, which makes our society revolutionary. Democracy

minimizes are society to stay unchanging and encourages the people to make our

country what they want. This positive effect is clear in many ways and shapes the

rising generations to be strong in their beliefs and to be "go-getter." The world is

constantly changing and this ensures that the rules can change with it, as the

people see fit. For example, not even a 100 years ago slavery was an acceptable

social norm, but due to the people having the ability to voice their opinions this

was changed. The people where able to vote the President they wanted, who

started the transition to end slavery.

3) Class,

This is just a reminder that to gain full points in Discussions you need at least one

original post (for the first 3 points), then two responses to your peers (1st

response is worth 3 points and the 2nd response is worth 4 points). The original

post must be at least a paragraph and the responses can not be simply agreeing

and restating the original post.

I sincerely want you to get as many points possible!

Onward!

Lana.

4) I believe these ideas have changed and influenced the ideas of specifically democracy.

We have natural innate rights which John Lock touched on as well. We do not necessarily

give up our natural rights, because we have constitutional rights and so forth. But I

believe we give our rights to the government so that they can create laws and rights to

protect its citizens as a whole. There is a larger aspect to this such as economical

benefits, and so forth. I view it as a method of bettering society as a whole. Because in the

end we all live together, and the government helps to provide safety and fairness among

the people.

Contemporary Philosophy Discussion

As people with very different ideas about reality increasingly live in close proximity to each

other, how do we balance the individual's right to their own perspective with those who

disagree? This is particularly important when it comes to areas in which viewpoints are

mutually exclusive. For example, in the case of allowing people who feel they have the

obligation to do so to arrange a marriage for a child who doesn't want to be in the arranged

marriage because they feel who they want to be with is their own choice, both cannot have

their way. Another example, in the case of whether public resources should be used for

parks or not, we can't both fund parks and not fund them. Postmodernity tends to try to

view different perspectives on the same level, but the reality is that these views can collide,

forcing compromise if we are to avoid chaos.

1)

I think the best way to find a balance in an individual's right to their own perspective

with those who disagree is a very complicated situation to approach. Society has

tried to lay out a set of guide lines to follow in situations but I do not think that is

beneficial, due to the fact every situation is so different. For example, a guide line is

everyone has freedom of speech, which is a great amendment but it is hard to see

how that fits in many situations that occurring in today society. I live in the

murfreesboro area and just next week we have a white supremacist group coming to

the square and my town decided to close down the square and not take action

because everyone is entitled to freedom of speech. In my opinion there needs to be

a person or elected group who views every situation, instead of allowing people to

hide behind the "law". The saying "no idea is a dumb idea" is completely false! Some

people's perspective are terrible and harmful. Henceforth, the people need to stand

up for what is right and take more serious action towards though who wish to

destroy this country. I do not care what "rights" they are entitled to. When a group

of people who threaten the very foundation for what our country stands for and

fought so hard to obtain, is allowed to do as they please twisting our rules then there

is an issue. There needs to be more discipline instead of allowing more division!

2) Class,

With all that is going on in the world and in America right now, really think this one

through. How DO we balance the individual's right to their own perspective with

those who disagree? It's all around us. As education men and women, what should

we do?

3) Balancing peoples perspective is a question for the ages. As far back as time tells us,

there have been wars and disagreements. Religion is a common reason for huge

disagreements and that could lead to a war. Is there a way to change the way people

feel or believe? It is possible, but if we all thought the same way we would never

make any progress. Disagreeing people have to be within a society for the society to

succeed and move forward into the future. Controlled disagreements is a way to get

communication in a collective manner. That's why we have the Supreme Court. The

judges come from different backgrounds and have different belief and political

systems. The judges can argue the point in which they stand and in the end, come

up with the best decision that they can make for the people. Maybe we should have

a Supreme Court for the entire World. If we put the right people in the right places I

believe we can come closer together as a human race.

4) The other night, while there was a group of students studying on campus, we had a

discussion related to gun control. In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, I was

stating that I see no point in citizens owning automatic assault rifles. Of course,

there was a disagreement. After about 30 minutes of discussion, the argument broke

into the difference between public safety and fun for the owners. There are many

solutions to this, but neither side will be very happy. More background checks? Less

access to modification kits to make these rifles automatic? Ban the owning of

Automatic rifles? Semiautomatic?

Leaving these situations as they are will not be effective either. These arguments haven't

reached a compromise, and because of this, chaos has ensued. We have mass shootings

more often, and each year it becomes more deadly than the last. First it was the Pulse Night

Club, next it was Las Vegas, and then what happens after that? It is clear in this case that

there should be a compromise. In the case of gun control, there are sides opposed to any

citizen owning weaponry, and there are others that believe we should have access to any

weapon we want. These views are mutually exclusive.

The easy solution to problems such as the one presented by gun control is to rule with the

majority. However, this has not always been effective. In examples relating to race equality,

gender equality, and religious persecution, often the majority doesn't want the "right thing."

For example, back in the 1960's, the majority wanted segregation. Eventually a judge ruled

against this and it has slowly worked it's way out, but it's taken decades to reach where we

are. In order to balance each other's rights, we must be open and educated. An uneducated

people who do not know the struggles of those outside of their demographic are not open to

give ground to them.

There have been numerous accounts of Neo-Nazis and Skinheads totally changing their lives

after they have had to rely on a person of color, or have actually met with these people.

Most of the members of White Nationalist groups are sheltered and do not want to be

educated on these matters. For them, their reasoning is justified by their experiences. On

the opposing side, their reasoning is justified.

Post-Modernism agrees with the notion of fundamental truths, which our society is ignoring

at a large. Universal truths, independent of humans. However some of these, such as the

notion that "All men should be treated equal" is a truth. There is no man inherently that

deserves more than a woman. In the example of the White Supremacists, they chose to

ignore this truth as it relates to people of color. Using this reasoning and logic, society can

learn to better itself. This philosophy believes that humans will be more humane and just in

later iterations of society, just as we are more human and just than the society of the

1960's.

While the actual solution to balance takes time, it begins with educating ourselves today;

seeing what others experience, the inequalities and why someone else believes something

different. Through understanding each other, we can reach universal truths, and use logic

and reason to reach a compromise that both parties will be satisfied with.

5) Every day we are exposed to individuals who share different views point from us. Even

though we all have our differences we share one thing in common, and that is the world

in which we live. Since we all have to live together there has to be some mutual

agreement. One way we could accomplish this agreement is to compromise with each

other in order to avoid total chaos. Another way is with the help of the different aspect of

society. These include:

1. The family- The family is essential because it is the first place where moral values are taught. By understanding their roots, we can learn to respect their viewpoint no matter

how insane it may seem. 2. The law of the land- A system of rules created and enforced through social or

governmental institutions to regulate behavior and ensure we treat each other with dignity

and respect. 3. Education- If people educate themselves on the facts; then they are less likely to make

irrational decisions and leads to more constructive dialogues. 4. Religion- The church is also another important source that is always open to guide and

encourage.