John Locke: Forcing Someone to Become a Christian Although Locke writes as a Christian, he recognizes that this is true of all religious beliefs. Overall, his letter argues for tolerance of other religious beliefs. The main argument of the letter is the irrationality argument, but it also includes others, such as the unchristian argument and the inconsistency argument. The argument from irrationality begins with the following assumption: "The care of each man's soul and of the things of heaven...is left entirely to the discretion of each man" in Horton and Mendum (eds.) ( 1991), p. 44. Although this hypothesis itself is somewhat open to debate, Locke takes it as a given and it is not one for which he creates an argument. With this assumption, Locke's irrationality argument is clearly presented as follows: First Premise The only sanction of magistrates is coercion. Premise two. Coercion cannot change religious beliefs. Conclusion Magistrates cannot therefore modify religious beliefs. This structure shows the two initial premises that he supports, in detail, as being correct and in the case they are right, a logically valid conclusion. In the first premise, the word “magistrates” refers not only to judges but also to the power available to the government and police forces. Their power lies in creating laws, enforcing them, and distributing penalties for violations. In the event of a violation of the law, the only option available to magistrates is physical coercion (incarceration) or the threat of violence. Additionally, as an act of persuasion, they may use coercion as a method to change a person's behavior. .. middle of paper ...... they don't succeed "just" because they might cause permanent mental damage to a person. Therefore, I think Waldron's argument stands as an attack on Locke's irrationality argument, particularly in the case about indirect coercion, because his argument makes both a compelling argument about how which it could be effective and ultimately challenges one of Locke's assumptions, thus strengthening his argument. I think there can be arguments for direct coercion, but there are obvious moral problems with this. Susan (1989), “Tolerance and the Limits of Liberalism”, Macmillan. Orwell, George (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four, Penguin, 1989 edn. Thaler, Richard H (2008), 'Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness', Yale University Press

Essay / John Locke: Forcing Someone to Become a Christian Although Locke writes as a Christian, he recognizes that this is true of all religious beliefs. Overall, his letter argues for tolerance of other religious beliefs. The main argument of the letter is the irrationality argument, but it also includes others, such as the unchristian argument and the inconsistency argument. The argument from irrationality begins with the following assumption: "The care of each man's soul and of the things of heaven...is left entirely to the discretion of each man" in Horton and Mendum (eds.) ( 1991), p. 44. Although this hypothesis itself is somewhat open to debate, Locke takes it as a given and it is not one for which he creates an argument. With this assumption, Locke's irrationality argument is clearly presented as follows: First Premise The only sanction of magistrates is coercion. Premise two. Coercion cannot change religious beliefs. Conclusion Magistrates cannot therefore modify religious beliefs. This structure shows the two initial premises that he supports, in detail, as being correct and in the case they are right, a logically valid conclusion. In the first premise, the word “magistrates” refers not only to judges but also to the power available to the government and police forces. Their power lies in creating laws, enforcing them, and distributing penalties for violations. In the event of a violation of the law, the only option available to magistrates is physical coercion (incarceration) or the threat of violence. Additionally, as an act of persuasion, they may use coercion as a method to change a person's behavior. .. middle of paper ...... they don't succeed "just" because they might cause permanent mental damage to a person. Therefore, I think Waldron's argument stands as an attack on Locke's irrationality argument, particularly in the case about indirect coercion, because his argument makes both a compelling argument about how which it could be effective and ultimately challenges one of Locke's assumptions, thus strengthening his argument. I think there can be arguments for direct coercion, but there are obvious moral problems with this. Susan (1989), “Tolerance and the Limits of Liberalism”, Macmillan. Orwell, George (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four, Penguin, 1989 edn. Thaler, Richard H (2008), 'Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness', Yale University Press

Navigation

« Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Get In Touch