I feel Samuel Adams speach on "The Rights Of The Colonists" was really his way of eloquently voicing the cries of the colonists. His aim was to not only make the natural rights of the colonists law, but to also give freedom to each man as his own. Adams believed that each man should have the right to look out and live for himself. Adams seemed to be the only one of his time who believed that religions should be seperate from all else, and that each other religion should be able to tollerate the practices of another. Adams felt that every man had enough of a conscience to be able to say what is wrong and what is right in society, and allow his view of god govern his actions and govern his punishment if he does anything unlawful. Adams believed that "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule," This is Adams beliefs for society and their relations to rights and laws in a nutshell. There really should be no super power in society ruling over all because nature already rules over all and needs no help. Although these ideas are agreeable in my eyes I feel that in todays society there is no way in hell that this could ever work because of the corruption in todays man. I feel as days progress and the rich get richer and the poor watch the rich and get poorer, corruption flourishes.
One point Adams made that i couldnt agree with was his view that all men are entitled to have servants to protect their "lives, liberty and property." I think this is extremely hipocritical because the fact that natural rights and life, liberty and property are the fundamental points of his speech he is allowing jobs as a servant to be fine as long as it is to protect ones lifestyle. That was one thing Adams said that I was completly opposed to.
Freedom and being self-reliant were definitely values for Adams, combined with a strong sense of dignity and pride in the worth of the individual. Finally, all of this was based on the simple idea that man can pretty much figure out the solutions to most problems himself. This did a lot to undermine the "powers that be" especially religion. How true is this today though? Modern living makes us much more interdependent on each other, especially in city-life. Is there still room to be self-reliant?
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about corruption sounds similar to Rousseau, another thinker from the Enlightenment period who had a different version of the state of nature and civil society than John Locke. Basically, he thought people were good in nature, and it was society that corrupts them.
He might be a hypocrite for many reasons besides having servants, he also thought Catholics should not be allowed to vote, isn't he contradicting himself?
Well to your first point I feel that religion is completely disrespected in everyday life. People seem to fear an omnipetant being but still find ways to disrespect it. The undermining of the "powers that be" that you spoke of it alive and a lot more strong today then it ever was before. Life in itself is changing where being self-reliant seems to be a fantasy because regardless of the independance you may have in certain facets of modern life, there are still facets which you will need another person help with, no matter how indirect it may be.
ReplyDeleteI dont think Rousseau was contradicting himself either. Although he believed that society corrupts its inhabitants, his idea to not allow Catholics to vote is a personal opionion just like people believe 18 years of age is the right number for people to vote when I think it could quite easily be pushed down to 16. People are entitled to his opinion and its not contradicting I feel its just a completely different statement of the mans ideas.