1. Drutman and Mounk begin their essay with a quote from the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes. What is its relevance for what follows in the article? What has changed since Hobbes’ time? Thomas Hobbes’s quote at the beginning of the essay is relevant to Drutman and Mounk’s argument in that it raises the question of equality in physical and mental faculties amongst all people, which raises questions about equality among workers with similar yet superior capabilities as people who are not human. Specifically, will these employers continue to abide by this idea of equality and support the human workforce when confronted with cheaper more efficient non-human options. This introduction of a mechanized workforce increase competition for fewer jobs and result in falling wages and a powerful upper-class, which have extensive political and economic implications. 2. Please list the key economic consequences of increasing automation. The key economic consequences of automation are: labor wages will drop, labor will be devalued, greater competition for fewer highly skilled jobs economic stratification into a small technological upper-class a large powerless lower-class, stagnate wages, low participation in
The revolution generated radical changes in the principles, opinions, and sentiments of the global people. New ideas and issues affected political ideas. In addition a new government was also changed. A few of the many enlightenment thinkers were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, baron Do Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
In the short story “Better than Human: Why Robots Will-and Must-Take Our Jobs” by Kevin Kelly on Page 299 in They Say/ I Say with Readings book there are various of positive and negative aspects of the story in which areas develops two sides to the argumenting point.In the short story “Better than Human” by Kevin Kelly there is a big conflict point in whether humans will end or create better jobs.
Hobbes and Locke both abandoned the thought of the divine right of monarchy. Both did not agree with the fact that the ruler or assembly would have all power over its citizens. So basically they were against Absolutism and their views were that of rebels in their time period. Theses two philosophers both held similar ideas but also have conflicting ideas pertaining to the citizens "social contract" with their rulers, "Natural Condition of Mankind," and sovereignty.
Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most influential political theorists in history. Each philosopher has shaped mankind’s political thought and both have earned the title of a “Father” of political thought. Aristotle and Hobbes contributed to the world of political thought with differing dogmas. They both stand on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Aristotle claims that man is naturally a social being and therefore a political animal. Furthermore, he understands man as controlled towards the community. Hobbes claims the exact opposite. Man is naturally ordered towards the individual and that individual is himself, according to Hobbes.
Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and
Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).
James Madison, one of the American Founding Fathers famously wrote in The Federalist that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.” From his 1651 text, The Leviathan, it is clear from his advocacy of philosophical absolutism that Hobbes would have strongly agreed with Madison, especially about human beings needing government to counter the what he believes to be the state of nature. Conversely, in his 1651 Second Treatise of Government, John Locke advocates constitutionalism, or a limited government, which not only protects citizens from the state of nature, but also empowers their rights through. 17th century philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke would have both agreed with Madison in varying degrees, in spite of their polarizing philosophies about the relationship between governments and the governed.
Change is in the inevitable byproduct of society. As societies evolve they change according to the life style of the people who inhabit them. Without change, society would never progress and thus would be frozen in a single moment in time. Thomas Hobbes and John Lock were two English philosophers who observed tremendous changes in English politics between the years of 1640 and 1690. In closely examining the views of both of these philosophers in subject areas such as the nature of man in society, the relationship between a society and its government, and the affect that both philosophers’ novels had on the government, it can be concluded that both Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies created prominent change in the methods of government.
We have already seen a decrease in jobs due to automation. Since 2000, the United States has lost 5 million factory jobs, while from 2006 to 2013, manufacturing grew by 17.6% (roughly 2.2% a year). 88% of those jobs were lost due to “productivity growth,” cites a study by Ball State University. The study also found that all sectors grew in terms of productivity by at least 32% from 1998 to 2012 when adjusted for inflation, with computer and electronic products rising 829%. In fact, the researchers found: “If 2000-levels of productivity are applied to 2010-levels of production, the U.S. would have required 20.9 million manufacturing workers instead of the 12.1 million actually employed.” In summary, due to companies’ expenditures in automation and software, the output per U.S. manufacturing worker has doubled over the past two decades. Indeed, “the real robotics revolution is ready to begin,” according to the Boston Consulting Group, who predict “the share of tasks that are performed by robots will rise from a global average of around 10% across all manufacturing industries
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are comparable in their basic political ideologies about man and their rights in the state of nature before they enter a civil society. Their political ideas are very much similar in that regard. The resemblance between Hobbes and Locke’s philosophies are based on a few characteristics of the state of nature and the state of man. Firstly, in the state of nature both Hobbes and Locke agree that all men are created equal, but their definitions of equality in the state of nature slightly differ. According to Locke, “…in the state of nature… no one has power over another…” Locke’s version or idea of equality in the state of
The main key points of the side that support the advancement of job automation is that AI will improve the standard of living, lower the prices of products, and encourage people to get higher education. As job automation progresses, so does the standard of living. The largest sector of the job industry that will be affected by job automation is the service sector, manufacturing, and many other jobs that do not require higher education. Since robots will replace these lower paying jobs that do not require much skill, the quality of life will increase. One negative effect is that there are numerous people that hold these positions in the lower paying industry that will lose
In defining political legitimacy, many theorists put forth a distinct set of values that frame their view on the authorities’ right to rule and citizen’s obligation to follow. Theorists such as Hobbes and Locke, both of their account on political legitimacy might look quite similar at first glance, because each theorized about the nature of mankind and the right political systems that would meet the needs of individuals. However, in Hobbes’ perspective, political authority does not pre-exist in individual’s state of nature, rather, it is created by the social contract and serves to ensure self-preservation which is threatened in a state of nature. In contrast, Locke thought that the social contract does not create authority, but that political authority is embodied in individuals and pre-exists in the state of nature, all individuals thus have the moral obligation to respect those rights made by authorities. In my point of view, Locke’s idea sounds more compelling than that of Hobbes’, because it allows individuals to have their own liberties free from an oppressive sovereign and prevents danger posed by absolute freedom.
Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;
John Locke (1689) and Thomas Hobbes (2010) share a common underlying concern: establishing a social contract between the government and the governed. To be legitimate, government must rest in the final analysis on the “consent” of the governed, they maintain. They also share a common view of humanity as prone to selfishness (Morgan, 2011 p. 575-800). Given the modern era, Hobbes views of the state of nature and government seem antiquated; no longer do the masses wish to be subservient to anyone man without question. Lockean principals are now the base for today’s modern, just, prosperous and free states.
Thomas Hobbes' View on Government Thomas Hobbes in his controversial work, the Leviathan, declares that such a government based on the rule of the common people, would result in anarchy and total pandemonium. But before one can understand Hobbes' view on government, it is important to understand how Hobbes feels about people. Hobbes has a very materialistic view on the world because of his belief that the movements of physical objects will turn out to be adequate to explain everything in the universe (Kemerling).