Jefferson's and Locke's concept of Ethics (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name:
Instructor’s Name:
Class Name:
Date Assignment is due:
ETHICS
Thomas Jefferson and John Locke did a great job both as scholars and philosophers. The common thing about is the fact that their thoughts on governance were almost similar. This essay will begin by covering how Jefferson's theory of revolution (found in its shortest form in the Declaration of Independence) follows from John Locke's theory of government. After that, I will narrow down to relating Hobbes’s theory of government to Jefferson’s theory. It is important to outline that Hobbes did a great job as well.
In Jefferson’s theory, he went ahead to justify the separation of the American colonies from the historical English rule (England).The concept brought out in this piece of work resembled what John Locke had in mind in drafting The Treatise of government in the later years. As a matter of fact, John Lock believed in Jefferson’s point of view, and that explains the great agreement between what these two scholars wrote.
Jefferson’s theory of revolution took the standpoint that natural rights of citizens were the basis for the formation of all governments worldwide. He brought it out quite clearly that good governments were those that put the rights of the citizens at the forefront. Governments were meant to safeguard the rights of citizens and they were supposed to do exactly that. Lock shared the same thought in his philosophy when he came out clearly by pronouncing the idea that governments were fundamental institutions responsible with safeguarding the natural rights of citizens. He went ahead to state what these rights were. They were: life, liberty and property.
Looking at the two thoughts forwarded by these two philosophers, it is easy to tell that both of them thought of the government as a body responsible with ensuring that the citizen rights were safeguarded. Locke was for the idea that every man and woman were entitled to live freely. No one was supposed to infringe on their rights. However, he did not stop right there. He went ahead to stipulate that the exercising of individual freedom (Lisa, pg 105) was not by any means supposed to harm others or step on their freedom.
Locke came after Jefferson. Jefferson advocated revolutions in a move to ensure that citizens got their rights. On the other hand, Locke took the position that citizens needed a rebellion in order for them to access their rights. The term revolution and rebellion are almost similar in terms of meaning (Lisa, pg 28. Jefferson’s writings impacted Locke’s in a great way.
Lock asserted that the only way natural man would live was by a golden rule. It referred to the fact natural man was not by himself disciplined enough and well-guided to lead life in a good way in a good way without some rules in place. It was a must that rules be introduced to dictate man on the right way of life. Hobbes theory from Leviathan agreed on this fact. It was the first part that these philosophers of diverse ideologies came to terms.
Hobbes insisted that a human being was an anti-social animal in the making. That would have made it impossible for a society to be established. A form of power needed to be introduced that would enable the founding of a "society”. From this statement it is easy to tell that the philosopher was quite skeptical about man. He thought that humans were not just with each other and that fights would be very likely to occur wasn’t it for the establishment of governments. Jefferson’s theory of revolution had something to do with Hobbes’. Jefferson looked at the government as a protector of the citizen rights. From his thought anyone can tell that one man was another man’s enemy and thus man needed protection from a fellow man. As mentioned earlier, man needed to protect his life, liberty and property.
Thomas Jefferson contributed a huge deal towards a stable form of government. Hobbes in his philosophy agreed upon this in a way. He believed in the monarchial form of government which had almost all the rights to make decisions that mattered. To him, citizens were supposed to surrender freedom for the government which was in one way or the other quite rational when it came to decision making.
The three scholars mentioned above played a pivotal role in shaping up the present day governments and should be credited for their great works. Their ideologies might have differed to some extent but one thing remains-all of them were for governments that would look out for the general good of the citizens. They were historical icons that lived in different historical periods, and they left behind a lot to be admired.
Where does patient autonomy leave off and professional expertise begin in the practice of medicine?
In this part of the essay, we are going to look at the significance of the patient autonomy and its role in propelling professional expertise in the field of medicine to the highest quality standards. However, it is important to first of all begin by stating what patient autonomy is. Patient autonomy is the right of any given patient to make a decision regarding the kind of medical attention that he or she should receive from the medical experts without necessarily being swayed by the same experts.
In the past, a lot of cases have been reported about doctors who took away the rights of patients to decide at points that really mattered during their treatment. As a result, many deaths were recorded. The intervention of some human rights groups and experts contributed a great deal towards the elimination of such unfair practices in the medical field. The habit of "doctor know best" had caused enough damage. A move to counter that was put up that went -"Does Doctor Know Best?"
Ethical decisions concerning life and death, extended suffering, and the various treatment programs are decisions that require the involvement of the patient in question. Doctors are not supposed to make decisions for patients during such instances regardless of how educated they may be. It would be a clever move to involve the patient since he is directly affected by the decision made in the end. Currently it is a criminal offence for any medical practitioner to impose a decision of the above nature without involving the patient.
It is high time humankind stops focusing a great deal on old technology and instead focuses on quality –improving and cost-cutting innovations. Under this we can make use of the generic drugs and assuredly that will help cut down on pharmaceutical cost. Better hand washing is a great step towards reducing the chances of contracting diseases.
Clean management for a long time has been known to simplify medical processes by cutting out unnecessary procedures. The above mentioned mechanisms can help improve medical care if well implemented. The main driving force that should guide us is the desire to achieve a system that will cater for the provision of top quality medical care.
The bad thing about "Does Doctor Kn...