NATURAL LAW/STATE OF NATURE: · Self-evident, universal laws, including inherent rights of life, liberty and property. (This influenced the American Constitution) · In the state of nature, man is a TABULA RASA (blank slate), devoid of original sin, born neither good nor bad. Born free, innocent, with inherent rights. Evil instilled by environment, such as parenting and education. (This influenced 18th Century philosophes, who tried to change institutions, politics, social welfare in order to better society.) · Although people are all equal from birth, sometimes age or virtue should give someone more power in certain situations: i.e./ Children are weak, powerless at birth. With a child in this imperfect state, the parents are obliged to take control, and to understand things for the child, until he/she is capable of reasoning and doing things him/herself. · People give up their perfect state of free nature, along with some of their power, in order to gain security and protection of their property: i.e./ life, possessions, estate. They are also drawn together because of their basic nature to want to be with other humans, part of God's design. · The three things lacking in a state of nature are: Ø An established, settled, known law Ø A known and indifferent judge Ø Power to back and support the sentence when right FORMING A SOCIETY: · If one enjoys the freedom and protection of a certain society, (Even if only for a day) he/she automatically becomes a part of it, and is obliged to follow its rules, whether or not he/she explicitly asks to join that society. 2 · Anyone who becomes part of a society without explicitly consenting to its rules may leave at any time and join another society, whereas, anyone who expressly gives his consent to be a part of a society is stuck. He/she cannot go back to the laws of nature, and must abide by his/her government's laws forever, or until the government dissolves. · All members of a society must go along with majority rule, as that is part of being a member of society. LAWS/GOVERNMENT/FREEDOM: · "The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom." · Without law, there can be no real freedom, since true "liberty is to be free from the restraint and violence of others." · The freedom of humans is based on an ability to reason. One set out into a world of unrestrained liberty, without faculties of reason, is not gaining freedom, but entering a "wretched state". · A contract exists between ruler and those ruled, and, if broken, may be terminated.
Mencken’s observations are very relevant and it applies to contemporary society. It is necessary to identify what it means by being “free”. Does being free mean that one has choice of religion and type of government? The type of freedom mentioned previously do not apply to mankind if mankind is not safe and is risk for danger. It is human nature to choose safety over freedom as shown in various examples.
Throughout a series of books, and now movies known as Divergent they hit a lot of points as to what is believed as a “good society”. In the series, Divergent all must conform and fall into a certain category Dauntless, Abnegation, Erudite, Candor, or Amity . If one fails to do so, and falls into all of the categories they are known as “Divergent," and must be killed for failing to conform to traditional society standards and rules. This relates to Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, because he talks about humans not needing a form of structure set by a hierarchy, such as a government. A good society according to Thoreau, is one with little to no government involvement, one that respects laws to a certain extent, and one that follows
The Rule of Law has always been a widely discussed topic throughout the history of modern political thinking. It can be defined as, “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law” (Dictionary.com). English philosopher John Locke and Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau have both developed well-rounded and detailed accounts on the Rule of Law and its crucial role in ensuring democracy and freedom in society. Despite the undeniable success and importance of their works and ideas, I believe ________ constructed a more persuasive and influential argument in explaining the extensive effects of the Rule of Law on government and society.
“To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom…” (2.8).
Throughout history, western philosophers have vigorously attempted to define the word freedom, to little avail. This is because the word carries so many meanings in many different contexts. The consequences of these philosophers’ claims are immense: as “free” people, we like to rely on the notion of freedom, yet our judicial system relentlessly fights to explain what we can and cannot do. For instance, is screaming “bomb!” on an airplane considered one of our “freedoms?” Martin Luther, in his “Preface to the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans” asserts that people are free when their actions naturally reflect laws and morality to the point that those laws are considered unnecessary. Immanuel Kant, in his “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?”, articulates a similar view: freedom for Kant is the ability to exercise one’s reasoning without limitation in a public sphere. A deeper reading of these two texts exposes that Kant’s and Luther’s interpretations of freedom are actually more similar than different. Indeed, they are mutually exclusive: one cannot coexist with the other and Kant’s views can even be read as a restating of Luther’s understandings.
Looking the word “freedom” up in the dictionary, I encounter with the following definition: the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited.¹³ Then, we can assume when you are unable to say things you would like to say, or to think in a different way than the one that has been imposed to you, you are not wholly free.
This text shaped my understanding of sociology because I was able to see how much power society, specifically the majority, can have over an individual because it seems to be the easiest course of action. This concept is known as social conformity. The article Opinions and Social Pressure took the time to convey how the minds of the majority and the minority work, and provides insight on how social conformity shapes our everyday experiences.
Society is ever changing and the people are just the same. Throughout history, it is shown that people change and mold to their surroundings. But when a deeper look is taken it is revealed that there is a minority that is unwilling or unable to fit these standards as most people do. These people tend to be forced into seclusion or made to fend for themselves. This is shown through the colonization of America and up into more recent times. The Native Americans are the first to make a life on this land, and when the English set up a new society, the Natives are forced onto smaller and smaller plots of land until forced to conform or to live on a reservation. The idea of this societal conformity is shown in “What You Pawn I Will Redeem” by Sherman Alexie, a short story author. Society's pressure to improve an individual living differently is hurting more than it is helping.
Societies that esteem social conformity view defiance as a by-product of insolence rather than an act of courage. Isolation of individuals that do not abide by the set restrictions is another common characteristic of systems that encourage mob mentalities. As a result, in order to be accepted by peers, individuals often have to function based on societal expectations. Some consider pursuing their own opinions and ideas against the social norms. This often garners backlash and hostilities from other members of society, ranging from physical and verbal abuse to denial of individual’s competence and sanity to complete alienation from society. Although some people are able to champion their freedom of expression and right to opinions over the need
The concept of freedom has a very wide range of definitions to it, making it another highly discussable topic. However, numerous philosophers have thought that being free is almost like being in a cage, which is ironic. A French philosopher by the name of Jean-Paul Sartre said, “freedom is hard to handle and many of us run away from it” (198). Though freedom is a basic human right, it is oftentimes very difficult to manage. With freedom, everything is a choice, which is very overwhelming. In a sense, freedom is actually a sort of cage because one can not be free without being forced to make any sort of choices and these choices dictate a certain path in life. So, this way, a person can never truly be free to do anything they want. Rousseau, a philosopher in the 18th century, also had a similar thought to that of Sartre’s. Rousseau felt that all human beings were born free, like Sartre had believed. In The Social Contract, which Rousseau published in 1761, he wrote, “man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (106). Just like Sartre, Rousseau concludes that as humanity, people enchain each other. Taken out of the natural environment and placed in cities, people have less freedom than in the wild though so many laws guarantee the freedom of everyone’s
“Social conformity has been practiced in societies around the world since ancient times,” and the reason it is so effective is that humans have an inherent need to be accepted as part of a group (Sadat). Furthermore, Hossna Sadat reports that:
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
In such a condition, people are able to pursue their own interests (Locke 2005, 3). Due to the restrictions imposed by the Law of Nature, which focuses on the preservation of humanity as well as their independence and equality, it is a peaceful place. No one is ranked above another because each person is God’s creation. Since no one has the right to take away what God produced and therefore owns, killing another human being is unacceptable (Locke 2005, 4). Locke did not think humans are good or evil because he viewed the human mind as a tabula rasa, meaning it is blank at birth and completely shaped by its environment. His belief was that the State of Nature has actually existed and will continue to as long as there are kings and queens governing independent communities (Locke 2005, 6). Right of Nature is an entitlement of all people; it is the right to live, the right to liberty, and the right to property, in respect to everyone else’s same rights. Infusing the resources provided by nature with one’s labour creates private property, but due to the Law of Nature, one cannot take more from nature than he can use, to make sure others have enough left. However, the State of Nature does not preserve people’s property.
When members of a society don’t follow or do follow the social norms people are given both positive
Society is a constant changing idea, whether that change be from region to region or a period of time. People move through it without thinking what they really are doing. Often they do not realize how much pressure society places on one’s being. It is the basis of how a person forms their opinions, beliefs, and morals. The structure of behavior rests in the society one is raised in. People’s acceptance of one another and a desire to conform create a world where people are struggling to fit in. Virginia Woolf sees this.