The answer to this question is true
Answer: A) Hobbes thought people were innately violent.
<u>Further explanation</u>:
Both English philosophers believed there is a "social contract" -- that governments are formed by the will of the people. But their theories on why people want to live under governments were very different.
Thomas Hobbes published his political theory in <em>Leviathan </em> in 1651, following the chaos and destruction of the English Civil War. He saw human beings as naturally suspicious of one another, in competition with each other, and violent toward one another as a result. Forming a government meant giving up personal liberty, but gaining security against what would otherwise be a situation of every person at war with every other person.
John Locke published his <em>Two Treatises on Civil Government </em>in 1690, following the mostly peaceful transition of government power that was the Glorious Revolution in England. Locke believed people are born as blank slates--with no preexisting knowledge or moral leanings. Experience then guides them to the knowledge and the best form of life, and they choose to form governments to make life and society better.
In teaching the difference between Hobbes and Locke, I've often put it this way. If society were playground basketball, Hobbes believed you must have a referee who sets and enforces rules, or else the players will eventually get into heated arguments and bloody fights with one another, because people get nasty in competition that way. Locke believed you could have an enjoyable game of playground basketball without a referee, but a referee makes the game better because then any disputes that come up between players have a fair way of being resolved. Of course, Hobbes and Locke never actually wrote about basketball -- a game not invented until 1891 in America by James Naismith. But it's just an illustration I've used to try to show the difference of ideas between Hobbes and Locke. :-)
Answer:
<u>Positives</u>:
Social harmony (in the sense of getting along with one another), a sense of identity and belongingness, a system of order, the very process of widespread and context/people-specific meaning-making that allows members of a culture to incorporate both traditions and changes into their lives.
<u>Negatives</u>:
The feeling of being left out and not properly integrated into a culture which can lead to perceived morally negative actions like , intense interpellation or forcing of an identity into a person which may lead one into depression.
They was forced in hard labor
If this is what I'm thinking then it's like Japan's history. Where Japan was basically run by feudal lords and their loyal clans. until Japan started to becomes westernized. It's affects where a civil war between the samurai fighting for the old ways and the new Japan military who were fighting for railroads and a new age that would disgrace the samurai's life style.