Thomas Paine’s Theory on Common Sense argues that people have both a moral and political obligation to act rationally. In this case, Paine expounds on the need to have natural law to guide the affairs of people. He stresses that all human beings are equal in that, they all have a mental position that guides their daily interactions. Similarly, Paine states that the government should respect and support to this instance. In his justifications, Paine applies the concepts that underlie Natural law. According to Paine, natural law elements the desire to do good. In this context, he states that according to him, his government was his mind and his aspects of religion were enshrined in the principles that guided doing good. In his work, Thomas Paine further stated that Common sense refers to those things that we need not directed by any other commanding force. In this case, he meant that, by the simple fact that a person fell in the category of human hood, it brought to book the reality that they had the mental position to make decisions that were bound in the traditional concept of appreciating things (Owen).
Every person has rational position that dictates whether he or she has done a good or a bad thing. In this context, establishment of an organization that purposes to direct people’s affairs in form of a government assume the ability of people living on the scales of equality. Politics and its resultant government assume that, not all people have the same ability to figure out the best and most reasonable ways to solve their issues. In the long run, the concept of natural law that is metaphysical in nature ceases to hold the essence. It is rather sat that, positivistic attitude in which its proponents as Karl Max believe that a man has to be under the direction of a sovereign. In this case, the sovereign is the government. Decisions are made by the government. Rationality is subjected to the established principles by the government. Paine argues out that; power and the respective drive force expected to be in the society should be originated from the person himself. Tendencies are evident by the elite in the political set up assume the position that the human being are equals (Bedger). Government is hence a primate violator of the scheme that identifies commonsense that should be guiding people’s affairs. In essence, the central idea being expressed by Paine is that, the government should be inclusive in upholding the fact that all human beings are under the significant impact of common sense. Laws and sanctions should be framed in a reasonable way so as to put into consideration that, the applicability of the two principles is a reality that cannot be overstepped.
In the opinion of Paine’s words, I think his argument is largely built upon erroneous justifications. In this case, it is not strong. His intention of bringing on board that, all human beings have the capacity to think, he fails to in the statute a justification on mad men and other people who cannot make sensible decisions. His argument tends to assume that, all human beings are individuals who focus to do good. However, at no point is he offering practical answers and justifications that determine the measure of common sense in human beings. He is unclear in his assertions. He just talks about the failures by the government to in statute proper procedures that would facilitate the respect and adherence to common sense principles among all people. When he talks of the manifest inequality, he fails to clarify why and how the inequality comes into play. On the same note, Paine is impartial in all that his proponents in the view for, he does not present an instance that brings on board issues that can tangibly be discussed. Paine talks of rationality but fails to establish the parameters that should be applied so that its soundness or the otherwise was defined.
Paine’s idea that the government must pay due regard to the fact that there exists common sense is not partible. I am further obliged to reinstate that, Paine’s allegations were erroneous ideas that cannot hold essence in any government. In this regard, the definition of the word government itself overrides his idea to a large extent. The scope of the government underscores that the government must be a system of identified officials who are responsible for the affairs of others. How will the officials work if it is established that special regards were supposed to be directed towards people’s equality? It is not reasonable to term an institution as a government if Paine’s ideas are given a chance to find roots in the same system that is regarded as the government.
In essence, Paine’s ideas are an absolute contradictory to the expectations that any government can aspire to dwell. How will government officials be respected by the same people who they are in equal with? In essence, Paine should have made a review to his ideologies. In this case, he should have paid due considerations to the fact that, absolute equality was not coherent with expectations that come along governance. In the event hi ideas are significantly incorporated into the system of government, repression ns will be eminent, and the whole idea about government will be a gone case.
In summation, I would like to acknowledge that Thomas Paine’s idea is a good idea in the context that it can be used as good theoretical information. However, his ideas are obvious rhetorical arguments that offer no significance in as far as governance is concerned.
Works Cited
Bedger, Elsie. Thomas Paine: Common Sense for the Modern Era. New York: Lulu Publishers, 2010.
Owen, Alfred. Thomas Paine's American Ideology. New York: University of Delaware Press, 2010.
