Locke and Hobbes Views on State of Nature

Introduction The state of nature, in political philosophy, is a term used in social contract theories to refer to the hypothetical condition that preceded governments.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Locke and Hobbes’ Views on State of Nature specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More In a broader sense, state of nature can be described as the condition before rule of positive law comes into being, thus it is a synonym for anarchy (Schochet, 1967). State of nature is fundamental in social contract theory since people seek to be governed by persons in higher authority in order to maintain their social stability. Hobbes and Locke were among the few philosophers who contributed immensely to the concept of state of nature. They were both natural law and social contract theorists who lived in the same era but had different views and arguments on the state of nature, justification of governments and the motives to move ou t of the state of nature. All other natural law theorists, except Hobbes, assumed that man was a social animal by nature. On contrary, Hobbes assumed very different conclusions and was infamous for several other unconventional results in mathematics and physics. Differences Thomas Hobbes wrote in his greatest work Leviathan, that nothing could be as worst as life without the state protection. As a materialist he borrowed a lot from the principle of conservation in motion from Galileo’s theory. He noted, that an object is eternally supposed to be in motion unless someone disturbs it. Using the principle of conservation of motion, he argued that, human beings are perpetually seeking for new things (Macpherson, 1990). In addition stated that, life itself is in a state of motion and can never be enjoyed without desire to move. He argued that, it is only through the search of well-being that human beings go to war with one another and that the fear of death is the only leading fac tor to the creation of a state. The state of nature is pictured by Hobbes as a state where all are at war with each other. The search for felicity results to men constantly trying to aggravate their power. According to Hobbes, human beings are made equal by nature since what they possess is equal in terms of strengths and skills. He argued that the weakest has strength enough to kill the most formidable, either by secret maneuvers or by coordinating with others. Hobbes cited that in a state of nature three reasons motivate human beings to attack each other, which included the desire for safety, glory, reputation or for selfish gains. According to Hobbes’ theory, in a state of nature there is no room for the unjust hence there is no space for immorality, something that he referred to as the National Right of Liberty.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Individuals with coll ective rationality are contrasted by Hobbes. When explaining the peculiarity of â€Å"prisoner’s dilemma† Hobbes argued that it is difficult to achieve cooperation when individuals with collective rationality diverge. He believed that an individual’s rational behavior leads to attack of other people. According to him, it is our duty to obey the laws of nature just as other people around us are obedient to it. Incases where an individual feels endangered by other people’s standing, in just an occasion one is termed as acting jealously. According to Hobbes theory the level of collective suspicion and fear is very high such that we are excused for not obeying the law and that we only act in a morally upright way when others act the same way. Hobbes assumes that one concedes his rights to the government in return for life. To him, the role of the society is to direct creation of state and a reflection of the will of the ruler and that whatever the state does is just by definition. On the contrary, Locke’s views and arguments differ a lot when compared to Hobbes’. John Locke believed he could live in a state of nature and in a life without a state government. According to Locke, the state of nature is a state of perfect freedom and a state of equality that is only bound by the law of nature. In his theory, Locke adds a moral and technological aspect where he states that due to the fact that we are all creatures of God we should not harm others except for purposes of self defense. All people have a duty to protect and help others without doing harming themselves. On matters of liberty, we have the freedom to do what is morally upright. Here Locke’s view clearly contrasts Hobbes’ who cited that every one has a right over every thing in a state of nature, even the right over other people’s bodies. Locke advocated for equality among human beings and stated that everyone has the power to enforce the law of n ature within a state of nature. According to Locke, harming somebody is only allowed in self defense and those who break the laws of nature should face punishment as a natural right. He argued that each offense should be severely punished according to its magnitude so as to act as an ill bargain for the offenders and to make them repent, thus terrifying others who may be wanting to commit the same transgressions (Olivecrona, 1998).Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Locke and Hobbes’ Views on State of Nature specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More According to Locke the most important right to be secured in a state nature is private property. He claims that God created us to own property and live in satisfaction but not to end up starving. Locke cited that there is a natural reason to own property in the sense that if man was to ask permission from another man to use the earth then it would amount to starvation. Lo cke’s picture of the state of nature is very optimistic. He argues that nature is not ruled by morality and individuals act for their best but not for the best of the community as whole. According to Locke, the reasons that led to creation of states were; increase in resource scarcity and the invention of cash that is a means of non perishable exchange. People could exchange land produce for money avoiding loss, creating wealth and imbalances that Hobbes termed as a state of war. According to him, the role of the society was to ensure justice was done. Similarities There are similarities between Hobbes’ and Locke’s views on state of nature. Both are political philosophers and their writings have influenced to a great extent development of modern political thought. Both refer to the state of nature in which man lives without a government and both point out risks in the state. Both, Hobbes and Locke talk about the dangers of the state of nature. Man is referred by both of them as being equal to the state (Macpherson, 1990). Locke describes nature as a state of perfect equality where superiority over one another is not exercised but despite the equality both warn of dangers of state of nature. For instance, Hobbes says that if two men cannot enjoy the same thing they turn out to be enemies, something that ends in a state of war. Locke points out risks in cases where the law of nature is lacking and everyone executes duties, this may result to what Hobbes refers to as a state of war. Both Locke and Hobbes somehow seem to agree on the law of nature. They seem to agree the concept of law to imply a law enforcer; otherwise the law would be an empty concept. Conclusion I tend to agree with Locke’s point of view in his argument, that in a state of nature there are moral codes which guide and inspire human beings (Macpherson, 1990). My reluctance to support Hobbes argument is supported by the fact that people may choose follow individual reas oning instead of a collective reason. However, Locke’s law of nature is somehow weak since it requires somebody to enforce it and his argument that everybody is empowered may not be true and may result to what Hobbes termed as state of war.Advertising Looking for essay on political sciences? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More References Macpherson, C.B.(1990). The political theory of possessive individualism. Oxford: Clarendon Press Oxford Olivecrona, K.L.(1998). Appropriation in the State of Nature: Locke on the Origin of Property. Journal of the History of Ideas,78(67),90-123. Schochet, G.J.(1967). Thomas Hobbes on the Family and the State of Nature. Political  Science Quarterly,90,78-80 This essay on Locke and Hobbes’ Views on State of Nature was written and submitted by user Annika Ramos to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

The Effects of the Korea Division on South Korea after the Korean War

The Effects of the Korea Division on South Korea after the Korean War Introduction The division of Korea was an event, which stemmed from the 1945 World War II victory of the Allied nations. The victory marked the end of the 35 year long Japanese rule over Korea. The division, resulted from the declined proposal, for the United States and the Soviet Union, to transitorily occupy Korea, in the form of a trusteeship.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Effects of the Korea Division on South Korea after the Korean War specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The trusteeship, was intended to bring about the establishment of a Korean provisional government, which would be liberated to independence, after gaining stability. In line with the proposal, elections had been scheduled, a move that the Soviet Union refused consenting to. The refusal by the Soviet Union, was mainly because the elections would be administered in a free and fair manner, across the two Korean divisions. As a result of the non-cooperation, a communist nation was formed, under the directive of the Soviet Union, at the Northern division. A pro-western state was also established at the South Division, through the backing of the two super powers. Also, the two super powers, backed the different leaderships of the different territories, which led to the effective establishment of the two states. However, the two states claimed superiority over the entire Korean region (Landsberg 71). Discussion The Korean War of 1950 to 1953, was a war between the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, backed up by China and the Soviet Union; and the Republic of Korea, backed by the United States of America. The war was primarily, the result of the political separation of Korea, which was made through the agreement by the Allied Nations after the World War II (Cumings 607). The impacts of the Korean division on South Korea are many, and they include land border issues, maritime incidents, and air attacks by the North Korean authorities. Other impacts include the democratization of South Korea. After the division of South and North Korea; the political climate was a cause for the political evolution of Soul, after running from authoritarian rule to democratic governance. Through the democratization of Southern Korea, the South Korean economy was able to establish an increased number of relations with foreign countries. As a result, the southern territory was able to develop security and foreign issues, which greatly affected the democratization of the state and the ability to establish cross-strait relations. This in turn contributed to the development of the state in its different aspects. These include the trade relations between South Korea and Taiwan (Lee 124).Advertising Looking for research paper on asian? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More After the division, South Korea was forced into the domination of the territory b y foreign powers. The effects of this domination may be seen in the area of the victimization of the people of South Korea, especially the women living at the Cheju region. Long after the division, the women at Cheju have had to condone to sexual exploitation by foreigners, especially Japanese men. However, after a lengthy period of such victimization, the women at the Cheju region resolved to enter into prostitution business, a case that can be traced to the bereavement of a majority of them, after the 1988 attack on the group branded the Guerillas. The effect of their decision to move into sex tourism is evident up to date, and is a case which is known among church leaders and administrative authorities. For instance, during a 1988 International church seminar held at the YMCA, church affiliates were reported, as saying that there was a need to have more Japanese tourists visit the Cheju region, as they would bring money into the area. The same people are quoted as reporting that the income from the sex tourism business, increases the endowment of the church in the area of giving (Lee 124). The division of Korea, also resulted in the instability of the South Korean state, a situation that pushed them into becoming reliant on nuclear war strategies, drawn from the superpowers backing them. For instance, it was reported that during the 1990s, there were enough nuclear bombs in the South Korean territory, enough to vandalize the entire Korean Peninsula biologically. According to the reports, there were between 120 and 1200 nuclear bombs, owned by the Unites States, at the South Korean state. During the same period, there were also more than forty thousand U.S ground troops in South Korea. Further, the autonomy of the U.S in the area of using nuclear bombs at the South Korean region, shows that South Korea fell into foreign dominance soon after the division. This is the case, as it is illegal for America to start the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, except at t he South Korean region, where they carry on such activities without the permission of local authorities (Lee 124). South Korea also became a pollutant-dependent nation after the division, mainly because of the establishment of poisonous production plants. For instance, there was the incidence of a boy who had died, after working at a mercury-producing factory for a period of six months. The case shows that South Korea, fell into chemical exploitation after the division of the different states. Further exploitation can be traced in the challenges placed in the way of the agricultural sector in the South Korean region.Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Effects of the Korea Division on South Korea after the Korean War specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More These include the strategy to keep South Korea under the rule of the U.S. During the 1990s, Korean farmers were under the threat of being faced out of the agric ultural production platform by the U.S. For instance, the U.S importation of beef products into South Korea, led to the loss of domesticated animals, like cows, and in other cases, the suicide of the indebted farmers. This was the case, as these farmers grew into debt, to the level that they could not keep their lands, thus becoming mere tenants. From the case, it is evident that foreign dominance was killing the Korean economy to its advantage (Oberdorfer 472). Other effects of the division of the two Koreas, include the land border attacks on South Korea by the North Korean forces. Some of these attacks include the April 1970 attempt, the November 1974, the recent 2006 attempts by the North Korean military, seeking to cross into South Korea, and the November 2010 attack on South Korean military training grounds. From these attacks, South Korea has had to remain on alert, ready for an attack from the North Korean forces, a case that led them into instituting readiness drills. These may be traced to the November 23, 2010 attack, which came after the Northern authorities had warned against planned military preparedness drills by South Korea. The drills were taking place at the Yeonpyong Island, where North Korean forces attacked. From the attack, there was an exchange of fire, which led to the death of 4 people and 15 others injured. This clearly shows the subjective treatment of South Korea by their North Korean counterparts, which has been the situation for South Korea, ever since the division. Other areas that South Korea has had to cultivate attack preparedness, include air operations and centers, especially after the 2003 attack by a North Korean jet fighter, which had entered the South Korean territory (Craig 75). Conclusion The division of Korea into the Northern and the Southern territories, took place after 1945 World War II victory of the Allied nations. The planned unification of Korea through a free and fair election failed, after the Soviet Union f ailed consenting to the proposal, a case that led to the creation of two autonomous states, backed by the Soviet Union and the United States. However, that was not the end, as the two states and the respective leaderships, were competing for autonomous control over the entire Korean Peninsula. As a result, the conflict culminated into the Koran war of 1950-1953. After the war, the two states were declared autonomous. However, North Korea continued its revolt against the autonomy of the Southern state, attacking it both from land, borders and air. The effects of the division of Korea on the South Korean state, include the range of attacks by the Korean forces, the democratization of the South Korean economy, and the domination of the territory by foreign nations, these including Japan and the United States.Advertising Looking for research paper on asian? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Other effects include reliance on nuclear war strategies, South Korea hosting a pollutant – dependent economy, and the exploitation of the South Korean economy by foreign nations. The forms of exploitation evident at South Korea, include sexual exploitation from Japanese men, and economic exploitation by the United States. Craig, Albert. The Heritage of World Civilizations, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall Publishers, 2012. Print. Cumings, Bruce.  The Origins of the Korean War: Liberation and the Emergence of Separate Regimes,  Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Print. Landsberg, Martin. â€Å"Korea: Division, Reunification, U.S. Foreign Policy.† Monthly Review 7.9 (1998): 71–77. Print. Lee, Ki-baik.  A New History of Korea, Seoul: Ilchokak Publishers, 1984. Print. Oberdorfer, Don.  The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History,  Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1997. Print.