Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Philosophy of Law: John Locke vs Immanuel Kant…

- - - - Worth of morality depends on the motive of the action (right thing for right reason)
      - For any action to be morally good it should be done for the sake of the moral law along with conforming to moral laws
    - - When we like animals seek after pleasure, we aren’t acting freely (acting as slaves of those appetites)
      - Freedom is the opposite of necessity
      - When you go for sprite or pepsi you are obeying a thirst/prompting that you have not chosen or created
      - To act freely (Determination of will)
        
        Act autonomously
        
        According to the law I give myself
        
        Heteronomy
        
        According to desire that I haven’t chosen myself
        
        Choose the end itself for its own sake
      - Respecting human dignity - regarding persons not just as means but also ends
        
        Wrong to use people
        
        Utilitarianism is wrong
    - - Doing the right thing for the right reason (preferred by Kant) (duty)
      - Motive to satisfy a desire that we may have (inclination)
    - - Hypothetical imperative
        
        Instrumental reason (give and take; you do this for me and you will get this)
      - Categorical imperative
        
        Without reference or dependance to any further purpose
        
        “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”(formula of universal law)
        
        Rule that explains what you are doing
        
        Test your maxim to see whether you are privileging your needs and desires over others (agrees with hypothetical imperative not categorical)
        
        Humans as ends law
        
        Rational beings = persons
        
        Have dignity and respect
        
        Humans are not open to use, they are ends in themselves
        
        Universally, one should respect others, humanity and therefore one should never violate these laws
    - - Autonomy vs Heteronomy
      - Duty vs Inclination
      - Hypothetical Imperative vs Categorical Imperative
  - - - Taught him that religion belongs to inner life with simplicity and agreement to moral law
    - - Began to admire the peacefulness of this city and worked on his own philosophy
  - - - Following Kant, anyone who testifies in court is required to take oath, which increases the credibility of the testification. Hence, you are morally required to respect the judge and their dignity by speaking the truth in court
    - - When you make a false promise to someone, you are using their means to fulfill your ends, which fails to respect the person and their dignity
    - - If you murder someone or commit suicide, you take their/your life for some purpose, which uses humanity as a mean, hence, disrespecting humanity
- - - - The natural rights we have can’t be given up taken
    - - Right to property, life and liberty
      - Unalienable/fundamental
        
        Non-transferable
        
        Can’t take away
        
        Makes it less fully mine according to society, but more deeply yours according to Locke
    - - God has a bigger nature of law than us
      - Reason is for those who do not believe in God, which means to reflect on what it means to be free.
    - - Become ours when we mix our labour (enclosed)
      - Every person own their own labour, therefore we have property enclosed in ourselves
    - - The inconveniences in state of nature
        
        Everyone is the executor of the law
        
        Everyone can punish to a point of aggression (killing)
        
        We agree to make a community by majority consent
        
        Conventional property is defined by government
        
        If someone is seen as inhuman (Natives), then it is okay to take their land away from them
        
        The state of nature does not apply to you
  - - - Until 2020, farmers had the ownership of their own land as they also mixed their labour in their property, which completely follows Locke's theory
      - However, since September 2020, the Prime Minister of India has still followed Locke’s theory but has inhumaned farmers, which gives him the right to take their land
    - - When you mix your labour in property, according to Locke, the property becomes yours, which contradicts what happens in today's society in terms of rent, which logically makes more sense to me
    - - According to Locke, no one has the right to take their own life
    - - According to Locke, no one has the right to take someone else's life away from them and therefore, should be punished under legal obligations