By: Dylan Driscoll
John Locke would be against the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan in WWII. John Locke believed that everyone had their life, liberty, and property and that no one should be allowed to take that away. Locke would not agree with the idea of bombing another country to oblivion, as it harms the people's life, takes away their liberty, and takes away/destroys their property.
There cannot be greater rudeness than to interrupt another in the current of his discourse.
John Locke argues against harming others and assaulting their three rights. When the U.S.A bombed Japan not once, but twice, they were violating the rights of Japan. John Locke's principles revolve around securing your three rights, while not snatching away the rights of others. John Locke would have not wanted us to interrupt the "discourse" of Japan, and would have wanted us to secure our rights (that Japan was trying to take away), but in a way that would not put the Jap's in the same position.
We are like chameleons, we take our hue and the color of our moral character, from those who are around us.
Locke would have urged us not to stoop to the level of our enemies. Locke described how even if we are generally good people, people that lack a sense of morality can change our point of view and encourage us to act drastically different. John Locke would not have supported both bombings directed towards Japan.
We should have a great fewer disputes in the world if words were taken for what they are, the signs of our ideas only, and not for things themselves.
Violence is never the answer. Mr. Locke claims that the only bombs that should be dropped are "bombs of peace".