Hobbes vs. Locke

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Further, depending on your perspective, Hitler's government was a stunning success compared to the ruinous state of the Weimar Republic before the Nazi rise to power. What he did with the power was horrible, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all the concepts are wrong.

Probably 90% of them are wrong, for different reasons. False understandings of biology were prevalent in Nazi Germany, for example, as well as false understandings of economics. Plundering accumulated wealth and redistributing it might generate the impression of a successful economic plan, but it really isn't.

[rade0110]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

In regards to Hobbes' thinking, although there may be an authority figure, there are going to be people who don't agree with that person's view, and might have their own definition of what's right and what's wrong. So how is an authority figure or a group of people going to be able to agree on certain laws that people live by if no one agrees with them?
Anyways, that's what I think.

You do realize you basically summed up how the US Government works right?

[devonin]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Probably 90% of them are wrong, for different reasons. False understandings of biology were prevalent in Nazi Germany, for example, as well as false understandings of economics. Plundering accumulated wealth and redistributing it might generate the impression of a successful economic plan, but it really isn't.

Oh believe me, I'm happy to list all kinds of reasons why I think Hobbesean thought is not "right" My point was to state that 'Hobbes is bad because Hitler is bad" is not one of the valid reasons to object to Hobbes.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Heh, I thought you were talking about concepts used to support Hitlers regime. Hobbes is wrong in fewer ways for fewer reasons than Hitler.

[devonin]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Well, I was saying to "Hitler = Bad, Hitler = Hobbes; Hobbes = Bad" that I had issues with all three of those equalities. Both that Hitler's regime was universally and in all ways bad and negative -and- that Hitler's regime was somehow textbook Hobbesean thought, and that therefore, saying that the latter was bad because of the former was not good logic.

[boondocks77]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

You still don't get the point. I didn't make this post to be criticized for. I made it to see who you belived, and why. And so far, CAFK is the only person to have correctly answered.

[devonin]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

You still don't get the point.

To be blunt, I get the point, I just don't agree with it.

I didn't make this post to be criticized for.

I think that you are labouring under a misapprehension about the nature of the Critical Thinking forum. In CT you don't get to post X, and say "All you can do is say I agree/disagree with what I said in X and explain why" When you post in Critical Thinking, even the basic content of your post is up for comment by other people in this forum.

You made statements that some of us considered to be incorrect statements, so your directive to pick which stance we agreed with didn't work since the stances you presented weren't properly indicative of their originators.

You say "Locke says A, Hobbes says B, which do you agree with A or B?" with the intention that the only thinks that will happen are people agreeing with A or B. But what happens if instead we want to argue that Locke actually doesn't say A, or Hobbes doesn't actually say B? These are both perfectly allowable courses for the thread in CT.

This forum is for discussion, debate and critical analysis. Just because you want to make a blanket statement and only want people to react to that statement as though it were factual, doesn't mean people will if they have something else they want to bring up about yout post.

Nobody is criticizing -you- here, ad hominem is just as bad for us to do as it is for anybody else, but you can't expect people who have an issue with the actual content of a post to just not respond to the thread at all, not in CT.

I made it to see who you belived, and why.

So far, one of the things we believe is that there is some misrepresentation of Lockean and Hobbesean thought going on, and wanted to talk about that a little bit.

And so far, CAFK is the only person to have correctly answered.

So long as a response has something to do with the topic at hand, contributes to the discussion, and doesn't contain any logical fallacy that would render that response logically invalid, it is a correct answer. Welcome to Critical Thinking.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Well I can't really say that I am completely for Thomas Hobbes or John Locke. For example, the majority of the people could be trying to take away your rights while one man or assemly of people could help you, but on the same token, the one man or assembly of people could try to take away your rights while the majority of people may try to help you. I can't say what type of government would be better for sure, but that life, liberty, and property must be protected by the government (unless one commits a crime) and that the answer to the Hobbes vs. Thomas debate would probably fall somewhere in between their points of view.

[devonin]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Ah the Hobbes vs Thomas debate...argues with himself a lot, does our Hobbes.

I'm utterly unsurprised that you're on the side of life, liberty and property, but I'm curious (though this is likely a seperate thread idea entirely) about your thoughts on the extent to which people lose their rights when they commit a crime, since you seem to want to abrogate their rights in such a situation.

[remedy1502]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Im actually toward Hobbes beliefs, we did this last week, where we had an inclass debate where I was against boondocks.
One reason is about corruption. If you have a dictator or leader who is corrupt, thats just one person, where as in Lockean thought, you would get many people being corrupt, which is much worse than just one person.

Grr I had another thing I was going to say but I don't remember. I'll get back to you.

[devonin]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

If you have a dictator or leader who is corrupt, thats just one person,

Hobbes may have a preference for a single authority figure dictating the law to the people, but that doesn't mean there is no government infrastructure, minsters, heads of programs etc who are all equally capable of being corrupt. Having one leader above everyone else doesn't a) make everyone else unable to be corrupt or b) doesn't necessarily mean the one can get away with being corrupt.

where as in Lockean thought, you would get many people being corrupt, which is much worse than just one person.

But insofar as Locke suggests that people can govern themselves reasonably, when you are legislating by common consent to enact rulings for the common good, it is in your own interest to not be corrupt because in order to leave openings in the law for your corruption, you allow for the corruption of others to be enabled as well, which would take away from your overall benfit.

It is better for you personally, even in Locke, to try and make it so nobody can be corrupt including yourself, than to try to make it so everybody can be corrupt including yourself.

Grr I had another thing I was going to say but I don't remember. I'll get back to you.

Please do

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Ah the Hobbes vs Thomas debate...argues with himself a lot, does our Hobbes.

I'm utterly unsurprised that you're on the side of life, liberty and property, but I'm curious (though this is likely a seperate thread idea entirely) about your thoughts on the extent to which people lose their rights when they commit a crime, since you seem to want to abrogate their rights in such a situation.

Meh, I don't know what I was thinking when I typed "(except criminals)". Of course, I don't have the intention of giving a death penalty to a person who only commited a minor crime like theft or I wouldn't persecute one criminal more harshly because they are of a different race, color, religion, etc. There is an extent to which a person would lose their life, liberty, or property that would correspond with the intensity of the crime (though there are certain types of punishment that I do not agree with such as the idea of a death penalty) if they are proven guilty or admit that they were guilty. Sorry for going off topic, but I just wanted to make up for a portion of that earlier post.

[boondocks77]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Im actually toward Hobbes beliefs, we did this last week, where we had an inclass debate where I was against boondocks.
One reason is about corruption. If you have a dictator or leader who is corrupt, thats just one person, where as in Lockean thought, you would get many people being corrupt, which is much worse than just one person.

Grr I had another thing I was going to say but I don't remember. I'll get back to you.

He's right. And he was a Hobbesean, I, a Lockean. And, of course, the Lockeans won, due to our strong points, we were triumphant .

[remedy1502]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

He's right. And he was a Hobbesean, I, a Lockean. And, of course, the Lockeans won, due to our strong points, we were triumphant .

Pfft, you just won cause Matthew said the most stupid thing.

[boondocks77]

Re: Hobbes vs. Locke

Pfft, you just won cause Matthew said the most stupid thing.

True.