pro-bipartisan
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2009
- Messages
- 939
- Reaction score
- 96
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Hello everyone, I am in the process of writing a book with many “mini books” in it. The general topic of the book discusses philosophy and the “mini book” I am about to present to you discusses where the writers of the Declaration of Independence got their philosophies from and John Locke and Rousseau. If you have no idea what I’m talking about just read and you will understand. Please tell me if you would like me to post my next “mini book” that discusses “John Locke vs. Thomas Hobbes, who is right” or one discussing the philosophies in the Constitution (but that will take more time).
Please give me as much feedback as possible whether it is good or bad, I just want your honest opinion and constructive criticism. Also, please don’t say “this sucks”, just tell me why you don’t like it and there will be no hard feelings, thanks a lot.
PLEASE READ THIS: When I say Thomas Jefferson wrote the D.O.I. I mean he literally wrote it, not that he came up with all the ideas. Also, I know these two men aren’t the only people who influenced the philosophies in the Declaration
Note- this is a rough draft
1. The Declaration of Independence
Who really wrote the Declaration of Independence? We all know Thomas Jefferson wrote it but where did his philosophies come from? Who came up with the ideas that the United States bases its values on? It turns out that Jefferson and the other creators of the Declaration got there philosophies from a British man and a Swiss born man (who will be named later). Ironic isn’t it? That the colonies were fighting so hard to separate themselves from Britain yet the political elite based some of their philosophies from a British person? The two men that Thomas Jefferson and others pulled their philosophies from are John Locke, a 17th century British philosopher an Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th century writer and political philosopher.
John Locke and Rousseau created the theory of the social contract that the Declaration creators agreed with and put in the Declaration of Independence. The social contract states that human beings have made an agreement with their government that the government and the people have distinct roles and responsibilities. This theory is based on the idea that humans abandoned a natural (free and ungoverned) condition in favor of a society that provides them with order, structure, and protection. In simple terms, this means that the people will give up authority and personal liberties to the government. And in return, the government provides peace and order. Also, if the government acts in such a way where it is not fair, just, or legitimate then the social contract will be broken and the government should be replaced.
The social contract is first evident in the Declaration when it says “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (referring to the three unalienable rights), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.” The Declaration states that when the government acts in a way that displeases the people then the people can change the government, exactly like the social contract. The social contract emerges again in the following words, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” This repeats what was said before about replacing government when the social contract is broken.
The central part of the social contract that is in the Declaration is how you violate the social contract and what happens if you do violate it. From the government’s leader’s perspective he/she can violate the social contract by implementing tyranny and the punishment for that offense is rebellion. On the other hand, the people in that state can violate the social contract by committing crimes, and the punishment for that is losing some of your rights.
But before you can violate the social contract you must initiate it first. To be a member of society in which a social contract is in place you must be responsible and accept the punishments that will be placed upon the law-breaker if they break the contract. This social contract works because of “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” in the words of Garrett Hardin. That entails punishments that are justified under the social contract because we are afraid other people will harm us but we won’t harm others.
The person that the creators of the Declaration accused of breaking the social contract was the King of England, George III as said in the following words, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.” Then there is a list of complaints against the king such as “He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
This social contract theory supports the rationale that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. This indicates that there is also an assertion of the “right of revolution” (which was previously discussed). There are various theories of the social contract but the core of it remains the same, including sovereign will. Sovereign will is when all members of a society are bound to the social contract by respect. The various theories of the social contract are based on the various people who sovereign will is supposed to be given to, whether it is a king, council, or the people. If your sovereign will is based on the king then you will have a monarchy, if the council then there is an oligarchy, and if the people then it is a Democracy. Obviously, Locke and Rousseau chose basing sovereign will on the people resulting in a Democracy.
Although Locke and Rousseau did agree on many significant ideas thry also disagree on many significant ideas. One important idea that Locke and Rousseau differed on was the answer to this question: Should society be individualist (which was Locke’s philosophy) or should it be collectivist (which was Rousseau’s thinking)? Rousseau though the people and the government should work towards the common good and do what’s right for the common will amongst the people. His argument against being individualist is that people will get too individualist and become egotistic. He thinks in an individualist society people will work and do what they think is best for them and not the common good. However, in a collectivist society people will put aside self gain and work towards the common good. Rousseau’s philosophy is what the creators of the Declaration adapted. The creators of the Declaration wanted society and the government to work towards the common good and not personal benefits which was exemplified by the King of England. Locke’s philosophy on this matter is that people should act individualistic. This individualism that Locke believes in stresses independence and self reliance. Individualist promote the behavior that strides to work towards one’s own goals and desires while opposing external influence. Individualism is also against tradition, religion, or any other external moral standard.
Comment
Please give me as much feedback as possible whether it is good or bad, I just want your honest opinion and constructive criticism. Also, please don’t say “this sucks”, just tell me why you don’t like it and there will be no hard feelings, thanks a lot.
PLEASE READ THIS: When I say Thomas Jefferson wrote the D.O.I. I mean he literally wrote it, not that he came up with all the ideas. Also, I know these two men aren’t the only people who influenced the philosophies in the Declaration
Note- this is a rough draft
1. The Declaration of Independence
Who really wrote the Declaration of Independence? We all know Thomas Jefferson wrote it but where did his philosophies come from? Who came up with the ideas that the United States bases its values on? It turns out that Jefferson and the other creators of the Declaration got there philosophies from a British man and a Swiss born man (who will be named later). Ironic isn’t it? That the colonies were fighting so hard to separate themselves from Britain yet the political elite based some of their philosophies from a British person? The two men that Thomas Jefferson and others pulled their philosophies from are John Locke, a 17th century British philosopher an Jean-Jacques Rousseau, an 18th century writer and political philosopher.
John Locke and Rousseau created the theory of the social contract that the Declaration creators agreed with and put in the Declaration of Independence. The social contract states that human beings have made an agreement with their government that the government and the people have distinct roles and responsibilities. This theory is based on the idea that humans abandoned a natural (free and ungoverned) condition in favor of a society that provides them with order, structure, and protection. In simple terms, this means that the people will give up authority and personal liberties to the government. And in return, the government provides peace and order. Also, if the government acts in such a way where it is not fair, just, or legitimate then the social contract will be broken and the government should be replaced.
The social contract is first evident in the Declaration when it says “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends (referring to the three unalienable rights), it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.” The Declaration states that when the government acts in a way that displeases the people then the people can change the government, exactly like the social contract. The social contract emerges again in the following words, “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” This repeats what was said before about replacing government when the social contract is broken.
The central part of the social contract that is in the Declaration is how you violate the social contract and what happens if you do violate it. From the government’s leader’s perspective he/she can violate the social contract by implementing tyranny and the punishment for that offense is rebellion. On the other hand, the people in that state can violate the social contract by committing crimes, and the punishment for that is losing some of your rights.
But before you can violate the social contract you must initiate it first. To be a member of society in which a social contract is in place you must be responsible and accept the punishments that will be placed upon the law-breaker if they break the contract. This social contract works because of “mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon” in the words of Garrett Hardin. That entails punishments that are justified under the social contract because we are afraid other people will harm us but we won’t harm others.
The person that the creators of the Declaration accused of breaking the social contract was the King of England, George III as said in the following words, “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.” Then there is a list of complaints against the king such as “He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.”
This social contract theory supports the rationale that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. This indicates that there is also an assertion of the “right of revolution” (which was previously discussed). There are various theories of the social contract but the core of it remains the same, including sovereign will. Sovereign will is when all members of a society are bound to the social contract by respect. The various theories of the social contract are based on the various people who sovereign will is supposed to be given to, whether it is a king, council, or the people. If your sovereign will is based on the king then you will have a monarchy, if the council then there is an oligarchy, and if the people then it is a Democracy. Obviously, Locke and Rousseau chose basing sovereign will on the people resulting in a Democracy.
Although Locke and Rousseau did agree on many significant ideas thry also disagree on many significant ideas. One important idea that Locke and Rousseau differed on was the answer to this question: Should society be individualist (which was Locke’s philosophy) or should it be collectivist (which was Rousseau’s thinking)? Rousseau though the people and the government should work towards the common good and do what’s right for the common will amongst the people. His argument against being individualist is that people will get too individualist and become egotistic. He thinks in an individualist society people will work and do what they think is best for them and not the common good. However, in a collectivist society people will put aside self gain and work towards the common good. Rousseau’s philosophy is what the creators of the Declaration adapted. The creators of the Declaration wanted society and the government to work towards the common good and not personal benefits which was exemplified by the King of England. Locke’s philosophy on this matter is that people should act individualistic. This individualism that Locke believes in stresses independence and self reliance. Individualist promote the behavior that strides to work towards one’s own goals and desires while opposing external influence. Individualism is also against tradition, religion, or any other external moral standard.
Comment
Don't spam the forum with multiple threads with the same topic. Duplicate threads deleted.