Julius Caesar and John Locke’s Treatise of government

Julius Caesar and John Locke’s Treatise of government Julius Caesar and John Locke’s Treatise of government. Explain the John Locke’s conspiracys reasons for taking action. In conversing Lockes Two Treatises of Government, Locke sets out his own perspective and arguments the complete power of the king to function without the agreement of the people. The main purpose of Locke’s second treatise is to sketch the suitable form for a society and government and to elucidate why his plan was suitable. Locke speaks that the only purpose for having a control is to protect the usual rights that people must enjoy simply due to the fact that they are mortal. However, when a rà ©gime or king (in this situation of Charles II), fails its individuals, the people are constrained to upheaval and start the rightful king (William, the Great Restorer). Thus, Locke inscribed his second treatise, in part, to show his backing for William III as king. (Locke and Laslett) Explain any relevant concepts discussed by Locke (civil government dissolution of government) Locke asserts that genuine administration is based on the notion of separation of powers. Main and leading of these is the legislative influence. Locke defines the governmental power as best (Two Treatises2.149) in consuming final power over â€Å"how the power for the state shall be engaged† (2.143). The government is still destined by the rule of natural surroundings and much of what it does is set down rules that additionally the objectives of normal law and identify appropriate sentences for them (2.135). The decision-making power is then indicted with enforcing the law as it is practical in explicit cases. Captivatingly, Locke’s third power is named the â€Å"federative power† and it contains the right to act globally conferring to the law of nature. If we relate Locke’s preparation of parting of influences to the advanced ideas of Montesquieu, we understand that they are not as diverse as they may originally seem. Locke’s federative control and the legal power as apprehensive with the local execution of the laws Locke’s policymaking power, it is more than a terminology than the thoughts that have altered. Locke deliberated arresting a person, trying an individual, and penalizing a individual as all part of the purpose of executing the rule rather than as a separate function. The concept of an â€Å"appeal to heaven† is a significant idea in Locke’s believes. Locke accepts that people, when they leave the public of nature, make a government with some sort of constituents that stipulates which bodies are allowed to exercise which commands. Locke also undertakes that these authorities will be used to defend the rights of the individuals and to endorse the community good. In cases where there is a argument between the individuals and the government about whether the government is satisfying its duties, there is no advanced social authority to which one can appeal. The only plea left, for Locke, is the plea to God. The â€Å"appeal to heaven,† consequently, involves taking up arms against your opponent and letting God judge who is in the right. A clear position on how Locke would assess the conspiracy according to those concepts Lockes theory of confrontation does not rest on on the legal fiction, of direct majority rule; actually the philosophy of resistance originates from the right of civilization to society a government which is sanctioned by the assent of the majority, which places genuine responsibilities on all members of society, and which functions for community good. The utmost danger to harmony and accord in culture — primary to its disaggregation — is an unlawful modification of its lawmaking that leaves no familiar authority. Confrontation to unlawful administration act is meant to anticipate this possibility. Where this confrontation is too little or too late we need to regulate the conditions in which it is still defensible, despite a lack of former vigilance, though we must suppose that late and incomplete action may demonstrate to be ineffective. It is the failure of government that defends resistance and, henceforth, legitimate confrontation is reliant on upon an precise, judicious and just valuation of governments activities. Evaluation of the decision how Locke would kill Caesar and how he would judge the actions of such characters as Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Antony. (Direct textual analysis of both works.) In Shakespeare’sJulius Caesar, Brutus’s killing of Julius Caesar is an ethically vague event. Therefore, we under no circumstances truly know whether we must back Brutus or Caesar because, while Brutus is labelled as a decent man who is performing in the welfares of the average Roman, Caesar enjoys traits that Shakespeare has made able to be understood as strong and good or as tyrannical. In the play, (Shakespeare) Brutus is exemplified as the honorable Roman with Marc Antony, his opponent, shouting him â€Å"the noblest Roman of them all.†(5.5.69) since of this point, if Brutus had been the one to propose the murder of Caesar, the murder could be deliberated an ethical, essential act. But it was Cassius, not Brutus, who originated up with the idea. Cassius’s cautious operation of Brutus is the basis of the act, meaning that, from the start, the idea was unreliable. Even when Brutus states â€Å"Let us be sacrifices, but not butchers†(2.1.167), which must be understood as him trying to take a additional moral path, he moreover embraces â€Å"Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods†(2.1.174), which exemplifies the fact that, good intents or not, the collaborators are still arguing murder, and mutilation at that. While Shakespeare is able to demonstrate murder, the worst likely action, as probably the ethical path, what regulates th e spectator’s opinion of the entire play is one query: In the public, can assassination ever be reflected the ethically right option? The response, according to the theorists Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and many others is no, it cannot ever be measured ethical. These thinkers’ views can preeminently be shortened by a quote from Locke’sSecond Treatise on Government, that â€Å"all mankind being all equivalent and sovereign, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or belongings†, which comprises that murder is thought to be measured completely incorrect. While this quote, one of the establishing principles of our own state, is totally against assassination, I believe that, in our flawed world, it is tough to say an act is individually incorrect and that there doesn’t be even one situation that homicide could be measured the finest option. Though the quote is individually against killing, it also includes â€Å"liberty† as somewhat that â€Å"ought not to be damage[ed]†, which, as oppressors typically infringe upon rights, brings up the query: When two of these mo rals oppose, what should do we do? I believe while Brutus and the plotters have good intents that could cause the killing to be tolerated, they do not, in my observance, have the essential circumstances. The plotters’ belief that Caesar will become a oppressor, and that preventive action is necessary to protect Rome, is founded upon many expectations. And in this case, when homicide is the preventive action, I think expectations, right or wrong, aren’t sufficient to defend a killing, but undisputable proof of Caesar’s oppression is essential. While I do not wholly agree with the absolutist declaration of Locke and Rousseau that killing is individually depraved and is not ever the best choice, I do trust that the individual or people anticipating killing a single need to have the best of purposes and undisputable evidence to support the motive for the decision. While murder can never be measured a good action, it will continuously be spoiled for good motives, it can be measured the best way of act in that it may be used to defuse proven oppressors and other persons that, if gone in our world, may cause the deaths and grief of many more person. In the case ofJulius Caesar, the conspirators’ movements cannot be reflected ethical or defensible because they required undisputable proof that Caesar was an oppressor and consequently required the necessary state in which murder could be accepted as a essential action. Bibliography: Locke, John, and Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Print. Shakespeare, William, and Arthur L. Humphreys.The Oxford Shakespeare. ; Julius Caesar.Oxford UP, 2008. Print. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg. Print.

Hitlers Rise To Power :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As most people on this planet know, World War II has been over for more than 50 years. The ideals of Hitler, a man wanting to eliminate all Jews and minorities, are views that can be questioned. Most people have difficulties accepting failure, and when failure arises people look elsewhere to blame someone else for their shortcomings. In society these people are called scapegoats. The question that comes to mind is Who was Hitler and what were his thoughts?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Most prominent leaders that can be thought of as great dictators were extremely forceful. Julius Caesar and Napoleon both rose up during troubling times of their country. They did this by going to war and winning, they would take over a country, set up a government, and then move on. Hitler was the exact opposite, he was a barbarian who ruled by striking fear into people. â€Å"They regard me as an uneducated barbarian. Yes, we are barbarians! We want to be barbarians! It is an honorable title.† (Rauschning, Hermann. The Voice of Destruction New York, 1940, p.80) The government that Hitler proposed had no real law. The people were to follow what they were told by those who were ranked above them, thus always leading back to Hitler. Hitler taught children to spy on their parents, and then report their wrong doings. He wanted people to hate their neighbors. He wanted those people of different, and for that matter â€Å"wrong† religions, political party, and/or race to be eliminated. A lot of the time when people look at history books and see a leader such as Hitler they might think that it was a long time ago, or that people were not that smart. Hitler rose to power in a time when people were literate, a majority of people were fairly smart, and none the less it was a mere 50 years ago.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  As most people across the globe will agree Hitler had unsightly political views. He preached that before a government can reach a victory or a happy state it must first undergo a change. This is why the nazi movement was necessary. Hitler preached propaganda, the information that today would be found in The National Enquire. What he preached was what people wanted to hear, it was an easy route out of all of their troubles. He was able to relay his message across the people in Germany and draw more than a third of a vote in a free contested election.

Portrayal of society in Oedipus the king Essay

People and society have been significant principles in every civilization. We gain power through it, stay on top because of it and are a part of it. In Sophocles’ time people were of great importance for the Greeks, it was the time of the establishment of democracy, the country was governed for and by the people. Antigone was written in France during the German occupation and contains political messages to the people. This essay tends to investigate how society is portrayed in Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Jean Anouilh’s Antigone, and briefly how and for what purpose this is done. The portrayal of society depicts the society in the play, and how that reflects the contemporary society of the author. One way of portraying society in Oedipus the King is through the chorus. In this play the chorus is a group of Theban people who express their ideas and thoughts, and pray to the Gods. By doing this they show how the Theban people react to what happens during the play. In the chorus’ first appearance we see them praying to the gods describing the horrors of the plague. The people of Thebes are suffering and they turn to Zeus, Apollo, Athena and Artemis for deliverance. This shows their strong faith in and devotion to the deities. The second time the chorus appears it is confused about Tiresias’ accusations. In spite of their conviction of the omniscience of the Gods, they decide to stay loyal to their king and not believe the prophecy until they see proof. This shows great loyalty to the king as does the finishing sentence â€Å"Never will I convict my king, never in my heart.†(l. 572) At the end of the ode the chorus is open to both possibilites, that of the deities being wrong and of Oedipus having killed his father. This is although they believe in them and respect them deeply. This demonstrates their open-mindedness and openness to new ideas. Sophocles’ contemporaneous Athenian society is also twined into the story. Oedipus’ character reflects that of the Athenian people. Bernard MacGregor Walke Knox writes1 â€Å"The poet’s language presents him to the audience not as a figure of the mystical past but as one fully contemporary; in fact he is easily recognizable as an epitome of the Athenian character as they themselves conceived it and as their enemies saw it too. One trait after another in the character of Sophocles’ Oedipus corresponds to Athenian qualities praised by Pericles in his Funeral Speech or denounced by the Corinthians in their attack on Athenian imperialism at the progress in Sparta before the war.† He goes on to explain that these characteristics are: being a man of swift and vigorous action, having experience as a result of constant action especially in naval warfare, courage, swiftness and rationality in action and decision, intelligence, adaptability to circumstances, and his dedication to the interests and needs of the city. Knox concludes with â€Å"Oedipus the King is a dramatic embodiment of the creative vigor and intellectual daring of the fifth-century Athenian spirit.† The preoccupations of the Athenians are also reflected in the play. During the fifth century B.C. when Sophocles wrote the play great changes were taking place in Athens. The old respect and attention given to the deities were eroding as the result of the intellectual, social and scientific progress of the time. About this Knox writes â€Å"The figure1 of Oedipus represents not only the techniques of the transition from savagery to civilization and the political achievements of the newly settled society but also the temper and methods of the fifth-century intellectual revolution. His speeches are full of words, phrases and attitudes that link him with the â€Å"enlightenment† of Sophocles’ own Athens.† This change in society is reflected when Oedipus ridicules and offends Tiresias who represents prophecy and spiritual power. In fact Sophocles expresses his conservative ideas by setting up the double irony of the blind man who can see the truth and the future and the seeing man who is blind to his past, present and even to his own identity. As the story goes on we see the proud man who rejected the prophetic power descend to total humiliation and destruction. Knox puts it this way: † The catastrophe of the tragic hero thus becomes the catastrophe of fifth-century man; all his furious energy and intellectual daring drive him on to this terrible discovery of his fundamental ignorance – he is not the measure of all things†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Anouilh wrote a new version of Antigone during World War II. His writing therefore contained political messages against the Vichy government. Most of the depiction of society happens through Creon and not the chorus. They are not Anouilh’s opinions but rather what he thought the Germans and the Vichy government’s view of people. By conveying this to the people he could motivate them to join the resistance. As opposed to Oedipus who loves and cares for his people, Creon does not respect or care about the people he governs. He refers to them as â€Å"the featherheaded rabble I govern† and says that if they â€Å"are to understand what’s what, that stench has got to fill the town for a month!† Clearly he doesn’t think much of their intelligence. He has only taken the position because he thought it would be cowardly not to and he thinks the country is on the brink of destruction. As he himself explains to Antigone he thought â€Å"Someone had to agree to captain the ship. She had sprung a hundred leaks; she was loaded to the water-line with crime, ignorance, poverty. The wheel was swinging with the wind. The crew refused to work and were looting the cargo. The officers were building a raft, ready to slip overboard and desert the ship. The mast was splitting, the wind was howling, the sails were beginning to rip. Every man-jack on board was about to drown – and only because the only thing they thought of was their own skins and their cheap little day-to-day traffic.† In these few lines Creon has called people criminal, ignorant, poor, thieves, lazy, quitters and egocentric. He is also giving a very dark picture of the country when he came in charge. He is implying that the government before him, be it Oedipus causing a plague and Eteocles and Polynices’ civil war or France’s third republic’s failure to deal with the depression, has destroyed the country and he is the one making amendments and restoring order. He describes people as hypocritical and makes them look stupid when describing Eteocles’ funeral. He sarchastically explains how â€Å"schoolchildren emptied their savings-boxes to buy wreathes for him. Old men, orating in quavering, hypocritical voices †¦and every temple priest was present with an appropriate show of sorrow and solemnity in his stupid face.† This also shows that he has no respect for religion or people’s beliefs, earlier he also uses phrases like â€Å"flummery about religious burial†, â€Å"priestly abracadabra†, â€Å"jibber-jabber† and â€Å"dreary bureaucrats†. At one point Antigone exclaims † Animals, eh, Creon! What a king you could be if only men were animals†. This can be Anouilh using Antigone’s voice to say that not all people are animals, but docile and obedient people are. In general one can say that society is portrayed as better in Oedipus the King than in Antigone. Sophocles describes society as loyal, pious, open-minded and Oedipus and the Athenians as active, rational, courageous, intelligent, experienced, good at adapting to new circumstances and compassionate. The only portrayal of society in Antigone, which is through Creon, describes it as criminal, hypocritical, stupid, lazy, self-centred and ignorant. That does not necessarily say anything about the people, but more about the ruler himself. The writers describe two successive generations of the Theban people, but through them write to and about people more than 2000 years apart. 1 Introduction to Oedipus the King in The Three Theban plays, Penguin Classics. Notes by Bernard MacGregor Walke Knox.

Complex Interactions And Shifting Ideals Shroud Our...

Complex interactions and shifting ideals shroud our country’s policy process. In an effort to better conceptualize and demystify this process, frameworks such as Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach (MSA) seeks to offer political actors a model of how social problems transform into living policies. Multiple Streams Approach proposes that existing social circumstances, when rightly redefined in policy proposals and paired with the ideal political climate, can lead to productive political decision-making. Though ambiguous in its make-up, MSA is a great model to use when attempting to name the key factors involved in policy making. Multiple Streams Approach suggests that the policy making process, oddly enough, flourishes in this opaqueness because we as political actors are not limited by distinctions (Zahariadis, 2014). MSA consists of three streams - problem framing, policy solutions, and political decision-making-that when brought together under the right conditions ca n produce change. The first of these streams, problem definition, seeks to rename the problem. In redefining an issue in terms the opposition understands, the issue has a better chance of gathering political support for its cause. One of the most vivid examples of how redefining has succeeded is the use of the definition â€Å"sociopolitical† when discussing disability issues. Before this, disability issues had been framed in the policy making arena through a medical and an economic standpoint, resulting in aShow MoreRelatedRobotic Assisted Surgery16730 Words   |  67 Pagesnew revolution in surgery and is one of the most talked about subjects in surgery. The extent of robotic surgery is still evolving today. Reviews of articles and websites about robotic surgery were researched and have been described in our research paper. Throughout our research we learned that there are many advantages of using robots to assist in surgery. The history and development of surgical robo ts were identified as well as the political influences, economic issues, physiological issues, culturalRead MoreOrganisational Theory230255 Words   |  922 Pagesmanaging, organizing and reflecting on both formal and informal structures, and in this respect you will find this book timely, interesting and valuable. Peter Holdt Christensen, Associate Professor, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark McAuley et al.’s book is thought-provoking, witty and highly relevant for understanding contemporary organizational dilemmas. The book engages in an imaginative way with a wealth of organizational concepts and theories as well as provides insightful examples from theRead MoreQuality Improvement328284 Words   |  1314 Pages an elected member of the International Statistical Institute, and an elected Academican of the International Academy of Quality. He is a Shewhart Medalist of the American Society for Quality, and he also has received the Brumbaugh Award, the Lloyd S. Nelson Awar d, the William G. Hunter Award, and two Shewell Awards from the ASQ. He is a recipient of the Ellis R. Ott Award. He is a former editor of the Journal of Quality Technology, is one of the current chief editors of Quality and Reliability Engineering