The Greater Good of Society Verses Individualism
His ideas off the war state and nature state. He greatly believed in democracy and equality among man. He believed in the three states of Democracy which are: a state of equality, state of liberty, and a state of nature. Locke believed that “one man comes by a power of another” and in doing so creates a perfect society. Locke’s view of society differs from the philosopher Thomas Hobb, but agree with Mill. He believes that a man in his natural state is constricted by laws, but could eventually do whatever he pleases.
The state of nature is to ensure safety so the nature of war is ot reached, so no man will step out of his state and threaten another man’s state.
or any similar topic only for you
Also if the natural rights of freedom are broken a state of war is reached. Locke views an individual to be more important than society. Individuals steer the way of which society is going, and where they will go. Because an individuals’ creates history, while humanity follows. For example Martine Luther King had one dream, this one man’s view and opinion caused an outcry to America for change; and change did come. If individuals state of nature or freedom there will be a state of war among man.
In conclusion all three philosophers all had similar ideas. They all believed that an individual is greater than society. But is that necessarily correct. One man is more important than humanity, and humanity is beneath an individual. Mills concept of happiness virtually ruining the good of mankind. While Locke viewed man’s safety of their natural state an essential rule of mankind, which prevents the nature of war. The last philosopher Hobbs had an idea that in order for mankind to function, the individual most do two thing. One could together to form a common bound, and two, be completely happy. But who is more important, you or mankind?