John Locke(1632-1704), was an English political philosopher, who is considered to be “the father of liberalism.” He promoted the philosophy of natural law and natural rights, which was a large influence later on when it came to the American Declaration of Independence. But why does Locke believe the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature?
The reason why Locke believed that the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature is because it cannot be impartial(treating all rivals equally and justly), to everyone. The reason why this is the case is because it would not apply to an individual who was having a dispute with the monarchy or state. Well it would not make sense for one to defend and protect themselves, while treating their rival impartially. This is why people are under the state of nature when under a monarchy or ruler.
Thus, this is why John Locke believed that the absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences,” of the state of nature.
Genesis 1 is in the book of Genesis which is contained in the Old Testament. It tells the story of how God created everything in seven days, and how the world came into existence. Theogony on the other hand is an ancient Greek piece of literature written by a man named Hesiod. Theogony tells the story of how the world came into existence in regard to the ancient Greek gods. Both pieces of literature sound very different just by these descriptions, but what are these main differences between Genesis 1 and Theogony by Hesiod?
Genesis 1 like I stated above tells the story of how God created everything in seven days, and how the world came into existence. This telling explains what God created on each of those seven days: for example on the first day of creation God created light. This story in my opinion is quite organized and easy to understand; it clearly explains how everything was created by God.
Theogony on the other hand tells the story of how the world came into existence in regard to the ancient Greek gods. This story goes something like this: the world began in Chaos, which created earth. Earth, also known as Gaia goes on to create Heaven, and together they create the first gods, which in turn created more gods. This in turn created a very large, complex, and dramatic family of gods or deities.
The first main difference between these two stories is that of the creators. In Genesis there is only one creator, God, who created everything. In Theogony there were many creators involved, for example Chaos created earth, earth, Gaia created Heaven and the first of the Greek gods, and those Greek gods went on and created more gods. There is more than one creator involved in the story of Theogony, unlike the one creator in Genesis, God.
The second main difference is that of how the creators are portrayed. In Theogony the gods are portrayed with human emotions and behave in many ways like humans with supernatural abilities. God in Genesis is portrayed above this, and behaves as a sovereign God. Another key important difference is that to do with sovereignty. The Greek gods are not sovereign; they are not fully in control; they still are able to get tricked by other gods, to have conflicts with other gods, etc. God in Genesis is sovereign and is in control, which is very unlike the gods in Theogony.
Genesis 1 and Theogony are two unique stories that both contain the telling of a creation account. Both of these creation accounts are quite different; for example the creation account in Genesis 1 tells the story of how one sovereign God created everything in the course of seven days. The creation account in Theogony involves many creators, for example Chaos(which created earth or Gaia), Gaia(who created heaven), and they in turn created the first gods, who in turn created more gods. But regardless of the differences of both accounts I recommend reading both pieces of literature: Genesis and Theogony, especially Genesis.
James II was king of England from 1685-1688. During his short reign he was not liked by pretty much everyone, thanks to him being a Catholic. This caused people to worry that he would make England Catholic again. Eventually near the end of his reign the Glorious Revolution began; but what was the Glorious Revolution? Why is it significant to English history?
The Glorious Revolution began when the English people urged William of Orange, who was James’s son in-law to rescue them from “losing the liberties,” of England and Protestantism. James II who had, had enough with this whole situation actually left the throne himself, to prevent himself from being officially removed by his son in-law. This in turn set forth the reign of William of Orange alongside his wife Mary.
But why was the Glorious Revolution significant to English history? The “revolution,” if you could even call it that, was significant because England defied the majority of the political “trends,” which were followed by other European nations, which in turn provided more freedom than ever before. Also the revolution was almost completely bloodless, which had not really happened before
To conclude, the Glorious Revolution was a historical event in which king James II of England left the throne of England on his own accord, which was all due to him being heavily disliked by the English due to him being a Catholic. The significance of this event to English history was because England had defied the common political trends followed by other European nations, which in turn brought forth more freedoms than before.
After the execution of Charles 1st of England did not have a monarchy in place, which in turn meant there was no ruler ruling England anymore. The lack of a ruler did not last long though thanks to Oliver Cromwell stepping in.
Oliver Cromwell(1599-1658), was a member of Parliament, who was promoted to “Lord Protector,” of England. Other than being an important figure of power Cromwell was also a serious Puritan, who pushed Puritan beliefs upon the English citizens. During his reign more or less he had two main goals that he aimed for. The first of which being, restoring order, and the second which was to foster morality and piety amongst the English people.
Under Cromwell England was removed of all “earthly pleasures,” which included: taverns, theaters, lavish holiday celebrations, etc. People could experience pretty severe penalties if they engaged in any of the things that I listed above. Not surprisingly enough Cromwell pushed harsh policies upon the people of Ireland who were majority Catholic. Overall life in England under Cromwell was harsh and extreme; Cromwell was not a reasonable ruler in many ways, and was hated by the English for the most part.
In conclusion, this period of no monarchy or king in England did not last for long, eventually after Cromwell’s death, a new reign began with a new monarchy which in turn set forth a new era of English history.
Ethics is a very important thing, without ethics civilizations would not last. Without having some sort of ethical standard as an individual human being life would be confusing, since you would not have a standard of life. Many religions have a set of ethics in which a person who follows that religion must follow; Christianity is a great example of this. But what is the view of the Biblical materials on the role of ethics in the development of history?
Throughout history people have been making choices; no matter if that person was not considered as well known or important as another. These choices that were made by people throughout history could either be negative or positive choices, which in turn brought forth an outcome. No matter how big those choices were there were still outcomes to them which influenced history. For example look at the story of Adam and Eve, and how their choice to go against God affected history; or how the choice of more modern politicians has affected the course of history. The majority of these choices that were made during history were based one way or another on ethics, and I mean not necessarily Christian ethics, but just ethics in general. The reason why I believe that most of these choices were based around certain ethics is because a lot of these choices either goes along with a certain ethical view or goes against an ethical view.
But how does all this relate to the question: what is the view of the biblical materials on the role of ethics in the development of history? Well first of all the Bible in many ways is a guide to life; it provides an ethical or moral standard to follow, along with the reasons why one must follow these standards, and what would occur if one does or not follow these standards. It shows many great examples on what happens when one chooses to go against the ethical standard and God. In general the Bible is a very important piece of literature that has guided and still guides many people today. Because the Bible is a guide to life and provides an ethical standard to follow, and many people followed the teachings of God which is contained in the Bible throughout history, choices were made throughout history that revolved around the ethical standards contained in the Bible, either in the form of following or disobeying those standards.
Because the course of history is connected to choices that people make, the view of the Biblical materials on the role of ethics in the development of history is that of guiding us humans into making the right choices, to follow God, and be on the right path. Our choices as individual human beings can actually affect the course of history no matter how small that choice may be.
To conclude, ethics are the base to most choices that are made by individuals; either that choice goes against an ethical principle or goes with that principle. Choices are an important part of the course of history, outcomes are based on choices. The Bible is a guide book to life, and contains an ethical standard, which can influence the choices one makes, which in turn influences the course of history. This in turn is the view of Biblical materials on the role of ethics in the development of history.
A Chordate is an animal that has a notochord, dorsal nerve cord, pharyngeal clefts, and a muscular tail, for a period of their life cycle. Vertebrates on the other hand have an extensive skull, a backbone made of vertebrae, and they also have special hox genes for the formation of brain, backbone, etc. But how are Chordates and Vertebrates different?
Chordates belong to the Phylum Chordata, and also they belong to the Kingdom Animalia. Vertebrates belong to the subphylum of Chordates, and they are also craniates. Which thus in turn means that all Vertebrates are craniates, all craniates are Chordates, and which in turn means that Chordates and Vertebrates are all a part of the animal kingdom.
There is much debate over the free market and the welfare state; which one is better? Which one is worse? Why is one better than the other? But instead of focusing on those points in this debate I will ask the question: which promotes greater personal responsibility?
The free market promotes freedom in business, but the welfare state promotes the politics of plunder(taking from one group and giving to another). But what about individual responsibility? The welfare state takes from one group and gives to another, which does not promote personal responsibility. Instead of allowing individuals to provide for themselves, instead the state gives them the essentials: a home, food, etc, through a monthly paycheck. This is quite damaging to future generations who will grow up in these situations, since instead of seeing responsibility and hard work they see things being handed to them. An unfortunate aspect of this(though it has been pretty unfortunate already), is the fact that the state uses these individuals who are on welfare for their own good, by getting votes, etc. So truly it is a compromise; the government gives money to a group of people and thus uses them.
The free market on the other hand promotes greater personal responsibility, since it promotes people to be responsible for themselves and their well being. Instead of receiving paychecks from the state, people work hard to obtain the things they need in life; they depend on themselves, instead of the state. The free market promotes independence, which thus promotes responsibility of the individual.
To conclude, my answer to the question:which promotes greater personal responsibility, the free marker or the welfare state? Is that the free market promotes greater personal responsibility than the welfare state because the free market encourages people to be responsible for their well being instead of being dependent on someone or something, such as the state.
The Levellers was a political movement that emerged during the 17th century. This political movement had a unique set of views, which was different compared to what other movements believed at the time. What did the Levellers believe?
The Levellers were actually one of the earliest libertarian movements, and their beliefs revolved around: property rights, freedom of religion, free trade, limited government, etc. These views later on were very important in the shaping of new societies including the United States of America.
The book of Proverbs was written primarily by Solomon, and was directed towards his son. This book in particular is full of advice and is designed in my opinion to help guide people through life. Because of the book’s design it focuses very strongly on morality and ethics; but what is the relationship between ethics and sanctions in Proverbs 1-7?
Before answering the question one must know what the words ethics, and sanctions means. Ethics means moral principles, and sanctions means permission(it also means penalty), this is in relation to the Proverbs. In Proverbs 1-7, Solomon warns his son of the people he should not associate with or avoid to associate with. He tells his son to search for wisdom and understanding, and gives other important life advice. But how does all this come into relation with ethics and sanctions? Well for every action there is a consequence, for example if you steal you will most likely be caught or feel guilt after doing so. Consequences do not necessarily have to be negative though. So there will always be consequences for one’s actions, even though it may not seem so.
The Proverbs provides ethics, it is in many ways a book of ethics, as individuals we can choose to follow them or not. In the Proverbs it shows examples of good and bad ethics; ethics one should not follow, and ethics one should follow. But what about sanctions? How does it come into the picture? Well like I stated, sanctions at least how I perceived it to mean in the context of the Proverbs is permission, or permission from a higher power or ruler, who is God. As humans we have free will, we can make our own decisions, bad or not, but that does not mean that God does not disapprove or approve of these decisions. In the Proverbs there are many examples of God disapproving of one’s actions, or approving of one’s actions.
Which is why I believe that the relationship between ethics and sanctions in Proverbs 1-7 is that of teaching lessons, instead of active punishment. Also this relationship is quite important, without ethics there are no sanctions.
In conclusion, the relationship between ethics and sanctions in Proverbs 1-7 is that of lesson teaching, and it is also an important relationship. Ethics is an important concept throughout the Bible, and so is the concept of sanctions. Without ethics there can’t be sanctions, or without moral values there cannot be moral standards.
There were many civil wars or revolutions throughout history, some of the most famous include: the American Revolution, French Revolution, and the American Civil War. But there are many lesser known wars of this form, one of these was the English Civil War, which occurred during mid 17th century England, which was under the rule of Charles I.
The English Civil War had a variety of causes but some of these causes included, Charles’s religious policies which were targeted towards the Scottish, and his disagreements with Parliament, which were due to him being an absolute ruler or aiming to be an absolute ruler. So with all of these factors it did not take long for chaos to occur. The civil war began at a Protestant gathering in Scotland, where a woman threw her stool at the preacher. The war was mainly about becoming free of Charles I, which did in turn happen in 1649, with his execution. In conclusion this was what the English Civil War was about.