- Is the human race inherently good or bad?
To put such ease into a question is to really deny what it is, in it's purest form. Is the human race good or evil? To answer that we would have to know, or at least be able to guess with a rational opinion, what good and evil are. We would then have to prove that our definition fit examples of what the two are. Even then, though. Is good and evil something that can truly be defined? Societies change morals and adapt them to their present state. What, then, of the question at hand?
- In our current society, do we live by Hobbe's or Locke's philosophy?
Locke argues that man cannot know good or evil. He says that, in our natural state, we are something of a peaceful race. Only in societies that shove us in other directions do we stray from that peacefulness. On the other hand, Hobbes say that man, in his natural state, is a brutish creature. Not a peaceful race at all, but bent on the ideals of a savage animal. This is where it takes a turn, but knowledge, to Locke, is well enough to know what is right and wrong. Still, though, we do not know good and evil, we know bits of what is good and evil. Which would go back to what Plato says about the difference between knowledge and right opinion vs. not having knowledge. Hobbes, on the other hand, is convinced that man is inherently evil. He says that there is no such thing as morality. There is no such thing as order and structure. There is only society and what it tells you is right and wrong.
With that being said, both philosophies pose great points and have real life evidence to support them. Not one man is right, but all men hold a piece of truth. In my personal opinion, Locke's theories fit the mold more closely than Hobbes's.
- Where should one draw the line between freedom and law?
Who is to say that there is a line between freedom and law? To say that there is would require the definition of freedom. Is there a definition, or is personal freedom entirely subjective?