/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2830752]

John Locke's theory of the social contract.

Your thoughts.

Go.

[Anonymous No.2830782]

>Philosophy

[Anonymous No.2830788]

>>2830782
>Engineering

[Anonymous No.2830798]

What?!

[Anonymous No.2830804]

>>2830752
My conclusion to Locke's contractionism is the same as my reaction to the versions espoused by his peers. It's a desperate attempt to justify the actions of a government , something they were uncomfortable with, and it only makes sense if you believe in inherent individual rights.

[Anonymous No.2830816]

>>2830782
>>2830788

[Anonymous No.2830822]

Socrates
>To be is to do
Sartre
>To do is to be
Sinatra
>Do be do be do

[Anonymous No.2831163]

It was an enormous advance at the time, because it attempted to put political legitimacy on a rational footing.

[Anonymous No.2831206]

>>2830804
>It's a desperate attempt to justify the actions of a government , something they were uncomfortable with, and it only makes sense if you believe in inherent individual rights.

Look at any human society and you will see the basic rules apply. If people want to live in groups (societies) they must first forfeit certain freedoms in order to live in the group and ensure group cohesiveness through pro-social behaviors. These forfeited freedoms include things like "freedom to kill whoever or whatever you want" or "steal whatever from whomever" etc. There is no group that exists where people just go around killing each other at random. That's not a society, that's just a bunch of people killing each other. These simple freedoms are decidedly antisocial. A society, by definition, is held together by a common goal. In order to establish common goals between people of a group you must first eliminate, limit or punish the aforementioned antisocial behaviors. Otherwise society can have no goal.