When analyzing the approach or intentions of theorists, great dilemmas and questions arise. This is the case of John Locke and Immanuel Kant, both of whom fall under the concepts of freedom. Locke, having a similar perspective to that of a libertarian, advocates rights of possession and limited government intervention, but the difference with his philosophy is that he "does not assert an unlimited right of self-possession" (Sandel 104). In other words, we may not do with our bodies what we want. Locke also argues that an unowned thing becomes your property through the fruit of your labor. In a literal sense, Locke's theory demands respect for humanity, but perhaps his biggest problem is the way he presents his philosophy. Locke believes in the sacredness of human life and invokes God with his ideas (Sandel 104). This is where the biggest question arises when reflecting on his theory. Many people are not believers and others have different beliefs. Suggesting a theory with a religious background may not necessarily appeal to the public, especially in a pluralistic society. Furthermore, Locke's claim of possession after work is not necessarily correct. Consider picking flowers in an open field. The flowers, or what you claim ownership of, are the fruit of your labor (harvesting), but that does not necessarily mean they are yours. The very broad and flexible definition of justice and ethics described by Locke leaves many loopholes open. Kant disagrees with Locke, utilitarians and libertarians. He upholds a philosophy based on the fact that human beings are “rational beings worthy of dignity and respect” (Sandel 104). Kant also does not agree with the idea of ​​the good life and his philosophy is based on three main contrasts: morality, freedom and reason. In terms of freedom, you are only free when