Social contract theorists say that morality consists of a set of rules governing how people should treat one another that rational beings will agree to accept for their mutual benefit on the condition that others agree to follow these rules as well.

Thomas Hobbes looked to the distant past to observe a primitive "state of nature" in which there was no such thing as morality. He found that this self-interested way of being was "nasty, brutish, and short," that is, a perpetual state of warfare. He outlined the civilized solution to this problem in the form of a logical syllogism.

We are all self-interested.
Each of us needs to have a peaceful and cooperative social order to pursue our interests.
We need moral rules in order to establish and maintain a cooperative social order.
Therefore, self-interest motivates us to establish moral rules.

John Locke disagreed. He refuted Hobbes' claim that early civilizations were always "at war" by pointing to historical examples of people in that "state of nature" and praising their efforts to maintain both their individuality and a fair society.

Locke set forth the view that the state exists to preserve the natural rights of its citizens. He found that when governments fail in that task, citizens have the right and sometimes the duty to withdraw their support and even to rebel.

So, which philosophy is most like your own? Is human nature animalistic or noble? How can you tell?

Let's consider an example that many of us can relate to. In December of 2001, just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Richard Reid attempted to detonate a shoe bomb while on board a passenger airplane bound from Paris to Miami. Fortunately, some quick thinking and brave flight attendants and passengers were able to stop him. As a result of that single incident, millions of passengers have been obliged to take off their shoes while going through the airport security check. Some consider this to be a reasonable precaution, while others feel it is an overreaction that inconveniences everyone without increasing safety.

For your initial post, discuss an example of something most of us are routinely required to do that limits our personal freedom. In your opinion, is the loss of freedom justified by some gain in social order or safety? Why or why not?

Question

dixie.rowe · Accepted Answer

An example of something most of us are routinely required to do that limits our personal freedom is wearing a seatbelt while driving a car.

While seatbelts can be uncomfortable and restrict movement, they have been proven to significantly increase safety and save lives in the event of an accident. In this case, the loss of personal freedom is justified by the gain in safety.However, it is important to consider the balance between personal freedom and social order/safety in each situation. Some may argue that certain restrictions, such as mandatory vaccination, go too far in limiting personal freedom, while others argue that they are necessary for the greater good. It is up to individuals and society as a whole to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of such restrictions and come to a collective decision.

To learn more about freedom click the link below:

brainly.com/question/30621656

#SPJ1

Answers

Related Questions

Answers