Critical Analyis of John Locke, Hegel, and And John Stuart Mill

Critical Analysis : Locke, Mill, Hegel

Question 1: How does Locke prove that human beings have a natural right to private property?

Answer (Book II chap V section 27): Humans have the right to private property because they are using their own labor in conjunction to take property from the state of nature and thus making it his own. By mixing his labor or his hands, which is an extent of himself, he is relating that property to him and no one else. When every we pour water into a glass, by using labor and our hands, we have the sole entitlement to the water.

Question 2: How does human nature limit this right to property?

Answer (Book II chap V section 31-32) Man has the right to use as much property as possible just as long as he finds away that is supports his life. Once he no longer finds ways to use his property for life, he has to give it up. To add to the limitations of property, Man can use as much property unless it is wasted and not good for the use of others. By wasting property, that persons is violating other people's rights because human nature states that everyone has the an equal

Question 3: How does Hegel's abstract right define the relation between freedom, reason, and property?

Answer:

Question 4: How does Hegel prove that the abstract right to property necessarily involves relation to other person's?

Answer:

Question 5: Using your answer to the proceeding questions, identify exactly what distinguishes Locke's position on freedom and property from the way Hegel's account of abstract right understands the same issue?

Answer:

Question 6: How does Hegel's account of abstract right prove that right embodied in property necessarily violates the same right in other persons?

Answer:

Question 7: Using your answer to #6, explain why Locke is in no position to draw the same conclusion.

Answer:

Question 8: State in your own words Mill's utility principle. Identify precisely how this principle introduces a tension between independent individuality and communal