Mill, Rousse, Hobbes, Locke

What is common in Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau is state of nature. In the state of nature all people are equal Ð'- although they have different tallents they are equal, because having different tallents doesn't prevent equality - and have same rights but in time they try to command each other and make domination upon them. Hobbes associate this desire with the effort to dispel the insecurity which is caused by equality between people. According to his opinion, if two people desire the same thing that they can not possess at the same time, they turn on each other. Ð'- we can affirm that this hostility is generated by equality-. Mainly for the purpose of protecting their entity, sometimes only by enjoying they try to destroy or dominate each other. For protecting himself a person thinks its required to increase the dominance upon others. As a result of this, war between people emerges. He says that " As long as there is not state, there is always war among people" The duty of the state is individual's security. He assigns a state that would limit freedom to establish security and limit people to prevent them to hurt other people.

"And therefore so long as a man is in the condition of mere nature, which is a condition of war, private appetite is the measure of good and evil: and consequently all men agree on this, that peace is good, and therefore also the way or means of peace, which (as I have shown before) are justice, gratitude, modesty, equity, mercy, and the rest of the laws of nature, are good; that is to say, moral virtues; and their contrary vices, evil."

As a foundation of the law of nature he asserts that, "Don't act like you dont want what is done to you."

Rousseau relates the desire of domination, with "faculty of self-improvements". We always want to be superior than others and this causes inequality between people. So, state is required for satisfaction of people's basic needs and providing oportunities.

When it comes to Locke, the reason is the right, which everyone has, to punish someone who violated the right of his own. That right causes people to hurt each other and to conflict. Thus, the state of war arises. For the sake of avoiding from the war, people construct the state. Duty of the state is -similar to Hobbes's ideas- protecting individual's life and properties.

Of Spontaneous Moral Laws

The root of the moral laws is inherent to people. People sailing from themselves, deciding what is right or wrong, good or bad, justice or unjustice, constitute moral laws. His only standard is his experiences or his intiutions. If we assign the criterion of morality on the consequences of actions ; namely, actions that results with positive effects are moral, with negative effects are immoral; people by deducing from their own experiences and observations determine what is moral or not. If we don't assign the standard of morality on results, consequences, effects but on the action itself Ð'-which is similar to Platon- to reach the moral laws intuition is required as a means Ð'-which is not similar to him-. With this means everyone can reach the knowledge of what is right, true, good, justice which is inherent in them but beyond experience and observation. Even if morality have it's source in individual, it is required a superior power to protect its laws. Sanctions is needed to proceed its guideline. It would be better if this force be society and originates it's motives from every individual's life. But society would be effective to a certain degree, after that, state would be required with its stronger sanctions. Like its rise in political life to coordinate the realationships between people it is required in morality to preserve the basic principles.

Why do I think the pleasure of whole instead of my own happiness?

To answer this question it would be better primarily to look upon at the human nature. If we assume that people are egoistic and they only pay attention to their own utility, then we can affirm that they can anticipate that if he hurts other people for the sake of his own utility, they would injure him either. This works in accordance with the law of nature which Hobbes expressed; "Don't that to another which you wouldn't have done to ypurself." By reasoning they conclude, if they want to protect and increase their pleasure they either must care for the others'. According to this aspect we can claim that happiness is not attainable individually.

If we assume that people are not egoistic; they care for and love other people as themselves. It also means that every individual try ro establish happiness for the sake of whole. It doesn't need any other proof.

What if the happiness of whole and of mine conflict? What if my own happiness conflicts with other individual's?

Utilitarians as a solution to this problem easily assert self-sacrificing, sacrificing of one's own happiness. If we turn back to our preceding assumptions, we can definitely apprehend that if people are egoistic, by any means, by Hobbes's law of nature or by reasoning, we can't convince them sacrificing as an instrument to happiness of whole. In this condition, when it comes to self-sacrificing, he wouldn't care the whole by no means. Either virtue doesn't make sense against egoistic nature.

But, reverse of this sight, if we deem individual, which is also my opinion, as a part of the whole and nothing any other kind. Every individual can reach intuitively the feeling of unity between his fellow creatures and ultimately not only people but also all naturel beings. Thats why satisfaction of bodily desires don't take important place in moral theories, is that they prevent attaining the unity beyond a certain measure which is necessary for living. Utilitarian theory supports this view with its second law of morality; "love your neighbour as yourself".

When people see themselves as an inseparable

part of universal being, like how its normal for a selfish man to work for his possible greatest happiness, itis also inevitable that they endeavour to establish the greatest happiness of the whole. What is Ð''self' for a selfish man, is that is Ð''whole' for a man who has this feeling. If it is necessary to give an example, let us look upon a selfish man. When he has two choice but only chance to select one. He would compare the utilities of them and decides the greatest one. To have the greatest utility of one, he renounces from the utility of another. It is also valid in respect