Reflection

a) Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are philosophers who came up with different philosophies concerning political authority (Huhne, 2013). John Locke advocated constitutionalism and the belief that every human had a right. He set forth the belief that the state has a responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and if it does not the citizens can withdraw their support or rebel. Thomas Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that the only correct form of government was an absolute monarchy (Wikipedia, 2013). Having lived through the English civil war, his experience led him to believe that to maintain peace and prevent another civil war there was a need for absolute power. I support Hobbes philosophy since I view Locke’s as having a number of limitations.

I agree with Hobbes that the only government strong enough to hold human’s cruel impulses in check is the absolute monarchy. Lack of a sovereign power leads to war and lack of peace (Sherman, 2013). Therefore, it is important that individuals are freed from control, especially because human beings are naturally powered seeking and entirely submit to the sovereign power. Observing this will ensure that peace is maintained. Allowing individual control will lead to war and therefore a sovereign government would be better as burdens of even the most oppressive government are “scarce sensible, in respect of the miseries, and horrible calamities, that accompany a Civil War”.

I entirely concur with Hobbes philosophy as I consider what life would be in a condition without a government. Perhaps the liberal way of John Locke is more desirable, that is, each person decides for herself how to act, and is judge, executioner, and jury in her own case whenever disputes arise. However, this is a dangerous state as there is no agency with recognized authority to arbitrate disputes and effective power to enforce its decisions. A state without subjection to Laws, and a coercive Power to tie the hands of its citizen from rapine, and revenge, would make impossible all of the basic security upon which civilized, comfortable and sociable life depends.

On the other hand, I discount John Locke’s philosophy as often times, freedom corrupts people (Finnis, 2013). Locke’s philosophy assumes that all people are good and they make the right decisions all the time but this is inconsistent with the reality. It is a fact that in every society there is at least a violent bad person and this person may corrupt the entire society. In the liberal society that John Locke suggests, it will be hard to tame such a person as people are free to act how they please and there is no authority to control their actions. Therefore, having a sovereign authority will be more beneficial in taming people in a given society.

John Locke’s philosophy also has its setbacks since allowing people to rebel to authority may lead to warfare. The philosophy states that the government’s task is to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. When the government fails at this, the citizens have a right to rebel against it. Often times the government may fail to meet all its citizen's needs and therefore allowing citizens to rebel will contribute to warfare due to the continuous disagreements. This would have been avoided if there was a sovereign power that individuals completely submit to. In such a government, the rebel will be unheard of and therefore there will be peace within the state.

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both philosophers have theories found on social contract theory. John Locke’s belief is perceived to be the liberal one. He states that the government is based on consensus and the citizens should battle for liberty in the face of an overpowering government. On the contrary, Hobbes believes that to maintain peace and a state of lawfulness, a sovereign government should exist and citizens should submit to it. For this reason, I strongly agree with Hobbe’s philosophy as opposed to that of Locke. Observing that Locke’s philosophy has a number of assumptions, such as, that all individuals are good and that freedom may not corrupt them. This assumption is not consistent with the reality.

 

References

Finnis, J. (2011). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huhne, T. (2013). "The state of nature" in John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Place of publication not identified: Grin Verlag Ohg.

Sherman, P. (2013). John Locke: Philosopher of the enlightenment. Huntington Beach, Calif.: Teacher Created Materials.

Wikipedia, S. (2013). English political philosophers: John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Bertrand Russell, John Stuart mill, Jerem y. Place of publication not identified: University-Press Org.

b) There are three key motives which led an increased number of Westerners in India, China, and Japan. These motives include political, economic and cultural. Through colonialism, the Westerners were aiming at expanding their territory which will make them more powerful than other colonies in the world. Since there was a booming economy, there was a need for raw materials as well as new markets in which they would invest. The westerners were aiming at building vicinity in China because China had tea and the British were in need of the tea. On the other hand, India had a lot of opium which it was delivered to the Chinese and they were not only aiming at exchanging it with tea rather they were aiming at making a profit from the business. The British come in because China had started the war on medication and thus it was only British which could make an arrangement of the trade. In this case, it was British which was selling the opium to China and selling tea to India and thus make a profit from the trade. To facilitate the trade, Commissioner Lin Zexu went to Queen Victoria and pleaded for help. Many people were addicted to opium during the Queen rein. Since Lin was not pleased with the trade, he collected as much opium as he could and destroyed it something which led to his differences with British and as a result, the British started a war on Lin since he was not willing and able to trade opium. The main thing that allowed Britain to trade and make policies in China is the fact that China started a war on drugs and seized over 2 million in goods, 42,000 pipes and 20, chest of opium. This outraged the British so they began the attack and killed over 20,000 Chinese and just to make peace they signed a treaty. One which was the unequal treaty, which I think was totally unfair because the Chinese were made to pay 21 million silver dollars because the British broke the Chinese law and the Chinese tried to help their people.   

 

References

Grasso, J., Corrin, J. P., & Kort, M. (2015). Modernization and revolution in China: from the Opium Wars to the Olympics. Routledge.

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm

http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/21f/21f.027/opium_wars_01/ow1_essay01.html

http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1793qianlong.asp

c) By the time ‘The Story of an Hour’ was written, the place of the modern woman in the society was a subject of interest. This discussion will consider Kate Chopin’s ‘The Story of an Hour’ and Mary Cassatt’s paintings. The discussion will highlight the similarities of the modern woman from the perspective of Kate Chopin, Mary Cassatt, and their contemporaries. 

The main theme in Kate Chopin’s ‘The Story of an Hour’ is on freedom and confinement. Basically, Chopin illustrates the struggles of the then modern day woman and how she finally finds relief in freedom. Through her protagonist, Chopin highlights how women felt free from the imposition of other people’s will. Ironically, this freedom is only experienced in confinement, when the woman is alone. From the story, the deduction that can be made is that the presence of a man took the freedom and independence of the modern woman away. It is perhaps for this reason that the protagonist feels free when she learns of her husband’s death but dies when he returns. This also highlights the presumed oppressiveness of marriage. Even the kindest of marriages, according to Chopin, was oppressive.

The same theme is present in many of Mary Cassatt’s paintings. The American painter essentially highlights the place of the modern woman in society as one that was defined by oppression. From her paintings, it can also be deduced that the role of the woman was limited to childbearing. The underlying fact is that Cassatt’s objective was to establish that women in the society at that time had been confined and limited. This can be paralleled to the message or theme by Kate Chopin in her story above. Therefore, it can be concluded that the modern woman strived to be free and in order to assert her place in society.