Goodness Of Other People example essay topic

What is common in Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau is state of nature. In the state of nature all people are equal - although they have different talents they are equal, because having different talents doesn't prevent equality - and have same rights but in time they try to command each other and make domination upon them. Hobbes associate this desire with the effort to dispel the insecurity which is caused by equality between people. According to his opinion, if two people desire the same thing that they can not possess at the same time, they turn on each other. - we can affirm that this hostility is generated by equality-. Mainly for the purpose of protecting their entity, sometimes only by enjoying they try to destroy or dominate each other. For protecting himself a person thinks its required to increase the dominance upon others.

As a result of this, war between people emerges. He says that " As long as there is not state, there is always war among people" The duty of the state is individual's security. He assigns a state that would limit freedom to establish security and limit people to prevent them to hurt other people. "And therefore so long as a man is in the condition of mere nature, which is a condition of war, private appetite is the measure of good and evil: and consequently all men agree on this, that peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace, which (as I have shown before) are justice, gratitude, modesty, equity, mercy, and the rest of the laws of nature, are good; that is to say, moral virtues; and their contrary vices, evil". As a foundation of the law of nature he asserts that, "Don't act like you dont want what is done to you".

Rousseau relates the desire of domination, with "faculty of self-improvements". We always want to be superior than others and this causes inequality between people. So, state is required for satisfaction of people's basic needs and providing opportunities. When it comes to Locke, the reason is the right, which everyone has, to punish someone who violated the right of his own.

That right causes people to hurt each other and to conflict. Thus, the state of war arises. For the sake of avoiding from the war, people construct the state. Duty of the state is -similar to Hobbes's ideas- protecting individual's life and properties. Of Spontaneous Moral Laws The root of the moral laws is inherent to people. People sailing from themselves, deciding what is right or wrong, good or bad, justice or unjust ice, constitute moral laws.

His only standard is his experiences or his. If we assign the criterion of morality on the consequences of actions; namely, actions that results with positive effects are moral, with negative effects are immoral; people by deducing from their own experiences and observations determine what is moral or not. If we don't assign the standard of morality on results, consequences, effects but on the action itself -which is similar to Platon- to reach the moral laws intuition is required as a means -which is not similar to him-. With this means everyone can reach the knowledge of what is right, true, good, justice which is inherent in them but beyond experience and observation. Even if morality have it's source in individual, it is required a superior power to protect its laws. Sanctions is needed to proceed its guideline.

It would be better if this force be society and originates it's motives from every individual's life. But society would be effective to a certain degree, after that, state would be required with its stronger sanctions. Like its rise in political life to coordinate the relationships between people it is required in morality to preserve the basic principles. Why do I think the pleasure of whole instead of my own happiness?

To answer this question it would be better primarily to look upon at the human nature. If we assume that people are egoistic and they only pay attention to their own utility, then we can affirm that they can anticipate that if he hurts other people for the sake of his own utility, they would injure him either. This works in accordance with the law of nature which Hobbes expressed; "Don't that to another which you wouldn't have done to yourself". By reasoning they conclude, if they want to protect and increase their pleasure they either must care for the others'. According to this aspect we can claim that happiness is not attainable individually. If we assume that people are not egoistic; they care for and love other people as themselves.

It also means that every individual try ro establish happiness for the sake of whole. It doesn't need any other proof. What if the happiness of whole and of mine conflict? What if my own happiness conflicts with other individual's? Utilitarians as a solution to this problem easily assert self-sacrificing, sacrificing of one's own happiness. If we turn back to our preceding assumptions, we can definitely apprehend that if people are egoistic, by any means, by Hobbes's law of nature or by reasoning, we can't convince them sacrificing as an instrument to happiness of whole.

In this condition, when it comes to self-sacrificing, he wouldn't care the whole by no means. Either virtue doesn't make sense against egoistic nature. But, reverse of this sight, if we deem individual, which is also my opinion, as a part of the whole and nothing any other kind. Every individual can reach intuitively the feeling of unity between his fellow creatures and ultimately not only people but also all nature beings. Thats why satisfaction of bodily desires don't take important place in moral theories, is that they prevent attaining the unity beyond a certain measure which is necessary for living. Utilitarian theory supports this view with its second law of morality; "love your neighbour as yourself".

When people see themselves as an inseparable part of universal being, like how its normal for a selfish man to work for his possible greatest happiness, its also inevitable that they endeavour to establish the greatest happiness of the whole. What is 'self' for a selfish man, is that is 'whole " for a man who has this feeling. If it is necessary to give an example, let us look upon a selfish man. When he has two choice but only chance to select one. He would compare the utilities of them and decides the greatest one. To have the greatest utility of one, he renounces from the utility of another.

It is also valid in respect of the whole, as in this example, the whole, the unity, might be obliged to resign the utility of an individual to another's'. This is what utilitarians call self-sacrificing. What is the moral measure of a conduct which doesn't have any visible effect? If an individual reach the knowledge of the whole intuitively, he don't need apparent effect of the conduct to evaluate it anymore.

He can easily foresee the possible effects of it on every individual, every event, every situation and the unity; which hasn't appear yet. It is important to remark that this foresight is a result of our intuitiveness. Which is more fundamental idea to the evaluation of the actions as regard to morality is the concept of "good in itself". It leads us to Platon's ideas. He claims that justice is good in itself not respect of its benefits, effect or results. Using our intuitive faculty, we can conceive the things good in themselves which we can call as virtuous.

Virtue as good in itself provides the utility of whole in a long run. As an inference from both Platon and The Utilitarian Theory we can say that as a realm of morality provides greatest happiness of the whole. To have an idea about human nature, when we observe people's behaviors we can hardly see an individual who doesn't care about only himself, who is not selfish. But this observation that is restricted in here and now gives us wrong directions.

It would be better to define what is "selfish" for beginning. A selfish, in a most common sense, is a person who always wants to increase his property and reputation. But its important to point out if egoism is a part of human nature or an attitude which has arise d in time depending on other profound natural quality. It will help us to answer the question of why people want to have property and reputation or social statue. By increasing their private property people strengthen their power. Before civilization power ty was required to provide (life security.

). It was inevitable for people protecting themselves from others' injuries. It is nothing different from "instinct of survival". Let us look upon reputation and social statue. Basicly they are nothing much than desire of approval and (to be loved). Not only for facilitating the life but also for sharing it - sharing their happiness, joys, dejection's, sadness- to increase their pleasure and to reduce their sorrows; people incline to come together.

Life is not a process that keeps going on alone for an individual. Every individual has a desire of being a part of unity which is biggest, strongest than itself and also embodies universal. As a consequent there are two basic instinct in human nature: survival - which is concerning about an individual- and being unity -which is concerning about the universal-. Thus, we can declare that people are not originally egoistic. Egoism has started to growing up after civilization peculiarly after modernism due to the corruption of human nature in time. Today, as civilized men, we are pursuit ing of our excessive desires which are not essentially originated from our nature.

When people have artificial desires its impossible to satisfy them. As soon as one of them is satisfied with a great effort, immediately the other one emerges and this process doesn't end. People desperately endeavour to establish their dreams which will never come true. Continuous disappointment makes their lifes unbearable.

It might be true what Rousseau said, savage man might be happier than civilized man. It seems good for everyone to dispense with our unnatural desires. If it is possible to realize, the consequent would be "general happiness". Should moral laws be determine by a group of superior?

Platon sets in Republic that philosophers, who have the love of justice and who pursuit of an essence, are utterly proper to direct a state with a right of deciding in the name of others un limitedly. He believes that these are the people who knows the goodness of other people and works for them dispensing with himself. He assumes that citizens can not always fix what is good for themselves or not. Furthermore sovereigns have also a right of telling lies to citizens for their goodness again. Could there any justifiable reason to decide in the name of other people? It can be responded as Platon did.

If it is for their goodness, it seems to be acceptable. Then, Can anyone claim that he knows the goodness of others better than them? (Can anyone loose the faculty of determining what is good or not for himself?) A good decision or a good choice is made under the condition of freedom. This proposition also presupposes that everyone should make their decision by their own, otherwise it will be a dictate. Eventhough I definitely foresee the goodness of someone, for instance I might have a knowledge that that he hasn't and would effect him, It wouldn't be enough to direct his actions and life.

I admit that everyone can't make the best choices for themselves. But it is also an important part of being a human. And at the same time, I admit that everyone has a right to form their actions and to determine their life freely even it's not good for them. Otherwise, It would be denying that everyone have a capacity to realize themselves with their decisions, notions, ideas, actions... It would be acknowledging that some group of people are superior than other due to their talents. This aspect easily gives rise the clarification of people according to their faculties or than according to something else.

It results with giving the superiors extensive rights than others. It prevents equality between people. The series of laws such constituted, inheriting what is right or wrong, what is good or bad, can be called only as dictate not as morality. Because, morality can merely develop in the condition of freedom.