Week 5- Post 3
It is always thought-provoking to watch the discussion betweent he college students. Each student that pipes in introduces a new question or idea that sometimes are things I didn't think about. This lecture allowed a lot of room for interpretation in a way, so there was a pair of students going back and forth about something they disagreed on. By listening to them, I was able to think about whose side I was on. Coming back to what I actually learned though, it took me a while to get. The way I was imagining the state of nature vs. consenting to give up enforcement to the government, was wrong so I had to go back and rewatch some parts once I actually understood.
Questions:
What should the ruling be on wether it is permissible for people to put cones in parking spots they cleared out to prevent others form parking there? Is it wrong for people to use those parking spots since the parking spots are supposed to be for the public.
If Locke believes we have inalienable rights and it is against the law of nature to take them away. And he also believes strongly in consent. Then does he consider suicide to be agaisnt the law of nature even if it is by the individuals consent, or is suicide some type of exception. What would he say about that?
Interesting question - Then does he consider suicide to be against the law of nature even if it is by the individuals consent, or is suicide some type of exception. What would he say about that?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you imagine he would think about suicide?
I feel like Locke would think that the law of nature overrides consent in a way. Even though the individual is consenting to the taking of their own life, they still defy the law of nature and take their rights, and Locke would focus on that part and call suicide an act that opposes the law of nature.
Delete