Throughout history, there have been different approaches in how to understand how certain aspects of how the world works. Specifically, in the 18th century, enlightenment swept through as a philosophical movement distinguished by belief in the power of human reason and innovations in political, religious, and educational principle. During this time period, many great figures voiced their varying opinions, giving people something to think about. Great thinkers of this era produced numerous books, essays, inventions, scientific discoveries, laws, wars and revolutions. Although this was the biggest movement in producing thinkers in history, it has not stopped individuals from producing modern perspectives which are different but similar. Through …show more content…
During the time of enlightenment, Locke provides his opinion on war describing it as a state of enmity and destruction. He explains how aggression presented by one person to another challenges that persons freedom, and this reasoning seems to justify someone’s audacity to kill. In addition to this, he displays the state of nature and state of war, pointing out that they are not the same. In his explanation, the state of nature is an environment with people living together by reason, without a superior. Furthermore, a state of war is possible when people create force on others, without having a common authority. When modern day thinkers like Shepsle think about war, they most likely factor in choice, and the right to vote. For an example, his perspective of rationality ties in with war in a way that everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint. Therefore, if there is a presidential election for say, and one candidate is pro war, while the other does not favor it, it can lead to people making different decisions. One individual may think that war is essential to remain being a competitive country, while another person might think this statement is irrational. In addition to this, Shepsle makes it clear that debates can help alter people’s decisions. With this being said, if two presidential candidates debated about why or why not war is essential this could create individuals making decisions according to how they were