Here are some volunteers helping out after the earthquake in Haiti... this shows they are part of a moral society

The Conclusion 1.14.11

So now, my blogging days must come to an end. Thank you for taking the time to read my ideas, now I know that you have to go out into that moral society out there. I just wanted to remind you to use your power for good and not abuse the privilege. Also i want you to keep in mind that if your government is not keeping your best interests in mind YOU have the responsibility to do something about it. Have a great and Lockean day! POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

John Locke. 

Understanding the Cycle 1.12.11

"Philosophies of leadership are determined by beliefs about human nature."

What this understanding means is that what we think about leadership comes from what we believe about human nature. Basically a leader will determine his own philosophies. But these philosophies derived from his own beliefs and thoughts towards human nature. for example if a leader believes that human nature should be civilized and moral then that leader will lead in a way that shows that he is a civilized person, and he will be a moral person. By this I mean that he will do good, and do what is in his peoples best interest... he will protect their natural rights. 

To an extent I agree with this statement... I do believe that a leader should follow their believes on human nature. My philosophy is that  human nature and their state of nature should be moral.. a leader isn't following that then their are not being a good leader and looking out for their people. If this happens then the leader could be overthrown. The part that I do no agree with is that not all the philosophies of a leadership come from that leaders view on human nature. They may also come from giving the people their natural rights. Such as when I stated "The people have a right to life, liberty, possession, and health," This did not come from my view on human nature. It came from the fact that I believe that the people have a right to these.. they didn't have to act in a certain way to prove to me that they had a right to these. 

"The governed have a responsibility for their governance."

My understanding of this understanding is that the people have the right to do something about the way they are ruled. At CVU if a student doesn't like the way a teacher is acting that student has the responsibility to do something about how the teacher is acting towards them or a different person. By this I mean if they should either talk to the teacher about it or talk to another adult in the school to get something done about what the teacher is doing to make the student feel like something isn't right. In this situation the governed is the student and the governance is the teacher. The governed has that responsibility to do something about the teacher who is, in the students eyes, is doing something wrong. That is why the student went to talk to somebody about the the "governance."


I completely agree with this understanding. In my philosophy I sate that the people have a right to revolt against their government if their government is not looking out for their best interest or is not protecting their natural rights. This understanding is saying just that... I 100% agree with this statement. 

"Human Nature does not determine our actions,: it inclines us towards us towards certain actions."

What I understand of this understanding is that human nature does not decide what we do, it just gives us that little "push" we use to make our decisions. A good example of this is Peer Pressure. Say your back in 7th grade... your friends are pushing you to steal a t-shirt. They say "everyone is doing it..." you could either steal the shirt or not... the decision starts with oh, well everyone else is doing it... this is part pf human nature.. but then that thought will either push a person to steal the shirt or make the other decision that you don't need to follow human nature and you can not steal the shirt and be better off. 

I do agree with this statement. We, as people, most definitely get that final push to make a decision from human nature. We don't let it decide for us however... we must think things through before making a decision. If we don't, and we just follow what everyone else is doing then we have the chance of failing.... if someone sees a person doing something that is against a moral society and then follows that person, and the someone else follows that person, and so on... all hell will break loose!!! So yes, I do agree that human nature does not make decisions for us... it pushes us to the decisions we make.

The Last Boys... in the views of Locke 1.11.11

I do agree with what the Lost Boys of Sudan did, and I understand why they had to. In my philosophies and theories I share that when the peoples government is not doing what is in their best interest they have a responsibility to revolt against that government. I understand this was a very dangerous situation, and so that is why having the vote now seems like a good idea to me. I support that the people of Sudan and other people around them... or not around them (such as people in other countries) are doing something for the future Sudanese generations. I know that there was not much the people of Sudan could do at the time... but they are following my advice now, and that shows they are wise... they are revolting against the government to get back their natural rights. This is what they have their responsibility to do... and it is happening. This is a very very realistic example of a population doing something to get their natural rights back. The Lost Boys of Sudan did what they had to do to keep their right to life. The vote is a very important factor in this situation because it is the deciding factor of if they get back their natural rights. This part I do not approve of. These people have the right to Life and Liberty... why is there a vote for these things? They should not have to vote for their own freedom. They rightfully have their liberty. All in all... I, Locke, agree with the situation.. but remember, I do feel the Sudanese have a right to their freedom... not a vote to decide it. 

Thesis 1.11.11

On the island the boys live in an unmoral, chaotic, absurd environment which caused them to turn on each other.

Lord of the Flies 1.10.11

Hello friends, I just finished the book The Lord of the Flies by William Golding, and I have to say i was very disappointed in the ending. I was disappointed from when Jack split off all the way through to the ending. They get rescued which I approve of, but I do not approve of the way that they got to be rescued. This ending is very unrealistic because they do not live in a moral society.

A better ending to the book The Lord of the Flies would be in a way the boys deserve to get rescued. By this I mean that they boys would not act the way they do in William Golding's ending of the book. Once Jack goes of by himself and gets the boys to follow him, the other boys will realize that Jack does not protect their natural rights. Once they realize this they would not follow him in the final fight, and they would go back to Ralph. After they go back to Ralph they would all work together and they would find a way to get rescued with out burning down the entire island. They would find a moral way of society.

The Opening and The Evidence 1.5.11/ 1.10.11

Hello my peers, my name is John Locke, and this is my blocke. As you all may know, I believe in giving power to the people! I believe in a moral society. In this society the people have the right to vote for their government. They also have the right to be ruled by a  government that fights for and protects their natural rights, if the government is not doing what is in their best interest they then have the right to revolt and overthrown their government.

Now, heres some of the ways the these days power is given to you guys... the people. In our presidential elections our nation believes in letting the citizens vote for their new president as apposed to letting a third party do the choosing.This is why in the most recent election there was a vote. Also, Not only in a presidential election but in other elections as well the people are given the chance to share their preferences by voting for what ever the election being held is for. In relation to these elections the people have the right to have a government that looks out for their best interest. For example President Nixon made mistakes in his terms as president, as a result of this the people tried to impeach him for not doing what was in their best interest. They had the right to do this to him, but he avoided the impeachment by resigning from his role as president. Another way you can think about my theory on social contract is when a "star" or famous person does something that is deemed "not appropriate" they have the pressure of their fans and the media on them. this may cause that individual to stop making appearances in places. In a way this can be related to the overthrowing of a large figure. That is just another way to relate my theory of social contract to something other than the government. Now, I believe in a moral society. One example of attempts of a moral society these days is the volunteering and philanthropy. By this I mean all the peoples efforts for helping out others. For example the volunteers in Haiti after the earthquake. The people in the Peace Corps, and all the Make a Wish Foundation. These are all examples of people doing good and that shows steps towards a moral society.