Hobbes vs. Locke

[boondocks77]

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]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by remedy1502

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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]

Originally Posted by remedy1502

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]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

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]

Originally Posted by remedy1502

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

True.

[hayatewillown]

I am Hobbesean.
I agree with Hobbes way of thinking.
I believe that to a certain extent, there is a privacy violation, but if it is best for the country, then it might as well be done.
It sounds pretty true that if self-indulgence can provoke war, I mean, thats how some of our wars started right?
Right now All I can say is that Hobbes is cool =D

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

I am Hobbesean.

Right now All I can say is that Hobbes is cool =D

The day someone chooses a leader or leaders because he/she is 'cool' is the day our world becomes corrupt. Do you pick a student president at a high-school, for example, because he/she is cool? Or because they're well-spoken?

[Kilroy_x]

What school are you talking about? People pick leaders over asinine things almost as a rule. In fact the probability that a leader will be chosen based on something asinine has actually been shown mathematically to increase as the number of potential leaders to choose from increases. How's that for Democracy?

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

How's that for Democracy?

You tell me.

[devonin]

Um...he was asking you, or being rhetorical...take your pick.

[boondocks77]

Originally Posted by devonin

Um...he was asking you, or being rhetorical...take your pick.

Either way, I wanted him to answer his own question.

[devonin]

Clearly his own answer is implicit in the phrasing of the question. He finds the fact that the larger the pool of candidates, the more apt people are to choose one for an arbitrary or asinine reason to be a knock against the system, ironically asking you if you support democracy under that circumstance. Just by using asinine in that sentence, kilroy communicates his dissatisfaction with this statistic.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

The day someone chooses a leader or leaders because he/she is 'cool' is the day our world becomes corrupt. Do you pick a student president at a high-school, for example, because he/she is cool? Or because they're well-spoken?

That high school crap is stupid. By cool, I mean well spoken.
How about that?
I mean, I wish could have I could have voted for president Bush, because he seems like a reasonable responsible man that doesn't brag about how many medals he has on his chest.

Thats how it should be picked. Whatever is best for the people and the country should be done. Even if it's giving certain power to certain groups.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

That high school crap is stupid. By cool, I mean well spoken.
How about that?

Hitler was a profoundly skilled orator. All of his speeches were extremely passionate and brought wild enthusiasm.

I mean, I wish could have I could have voted for president Bush, because he seems like a reasonable responsible man that doesn't brag about how many medals he has on his chest.

Why does he seem like a reasonable responsible man? Why is a lack of an action something worth voting for a person over? Most homeless people don't brag about how many medals they have on their chest either.

Thats how it should be picked. Whatever is best for the people and the country should be done. Even if it's giving certain power to certain groups.

In addition to there being a rather large disconnect between this and previous statements, the question remains what actually is best for the people and the country, and there are fairly strong arguments that giving excessive power to only specific groups isn't it.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by boondocks77

You tell me.

The answer is that it is an example of a dramatic imperfection in Democratic systems, and one which shows at least one of the commonly espoused ideological goals of Democracy to not actually be served by Democracy.