On the issues of justice and law, he says people have the right to self-defense, but not to war. Additionally, that police, government, and the armed forces, are up to be constructed by the people if they deem it necessary (42-43). I believe other institutions, like education, would also benefit from having more participants in its creation in order to reflect the diverse society. Rawls also mentions another type of society- a hierarchical society- where basic human rights are granted credibility by those in power and it accesses its legitimate aims through diplomacy, trade and peace (50-51/59). It is not liberal, equal, and free, but rather breeds responsible members of society that play a part in social life (53).
During Thoreau’s time, he mentioned two main unjust aspects, such as the slavery and Mexican war that cause him to reach the conclusion that individual conscience is crucial and has major priority than current laws. As proof of his idea, Thoreau explained that person should act from own conscience instead of laws in order to avoid sharing responsibility for the government unjust actions. Also, Thoreau claimed that the individual conscience is a base of social morality and principles, which helps to develop to better society. According to Thoreau’s society should show their civil disobedience for any unjust of government. Thoreau came to conclusion that person should obey conscience rather than law in order to defend the justice and moral p... ... middle of paper ... ...clusion during understanding that each person take response of injustice of the laws and main problem lie in social omission and lack of personal interest to resistance for governmental unjust policy.
In this case, should government be able to use its authority in any way it pleases as Hobbes argues or should there be a limit placed on governmental power as argued by Locke and Mill? I believe that a powerful government can exist and provide its citizens with the necessary security while being limited. There is no need for government to be large in order to achieve this. Although both Locke and Mill have a just understanding of what the limits of government should be, I find Locke’s understanding more persuasive. Locke writes that while government should restrict our freedom in order for us to avoid returning to the state of nature , the amount of restriction should be limited.
Therefore all sovereigns are in a state of war with each other. If a citizen wishes peace he must defend the commonwealth "otherwise the institution of the commonwealth, which they have not the purpose to preserve was in vain" and he says they are all in the State of War. Hobbes also contributed to modern psychology and laid the foundations of modern sociology by applying mechanistic principles in an attempt to explain human motivation and social organization. Hobbes point of view on human nature and how a government should be run is a more realistic way of looking at things than Locke's theory. Hobbes and Locke both agreed that a social contrast was necessary to prevent anarchy and that certain individual s taking advantage of others natural right.
In J.S. Mill’s book On Liberty in chapter four, “Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual”, Mill focuses on how each member of society should not harm others and how everyone is obligated to keep society safe by maintaining a balance. However, as Mill discusses in this chapter, society then has the right to punish these members who harm society, if the level of harm is high, the law will be used and if the harm level is lower then the public can scrutinize that person but the law will not step in. Mill has various ideas that support his argument but he also considered a few objections to his argument as well. In chapter four of On Liberty by J.S.
Such resistance is usually for the greater good of society as it represents the discontent of a general population. Civilians must profess discontent since it is necessary to understand current and ongoing issues that harm society as a whole. Justification of disobedience comes when the state does not have the moral, attentive, and supportive capacity to rule well among its citizens, which can lead to excessive coercion, ignorance, and support for small ruling elites. People have every right to defend themselves, even if sacrifice and consequences are at hand. This paper will argue the justification of civil disobedience so long as it remains non-violent and is used to defy the powers of the state and government when the rule of law is in need change for the greater good.
Montesquieu argued that to protect the rights of the nation and the security of destruction from the law; self governing bodies must possess individual powers to slow down the natural tendencies of an absolute monarchy. Basically Montesquieu thought that in order to get out of an absolute monarchy and to govern yourself; you must protect the rights of your country and stop the destruction of your country from the law. He thought that human beings could solve society's problems by using their ability to reason. Montesquieu thought that people should take a direct part in their government and not follow what a king or dictator says. That the people living in the country should decide what laws they live by and what there freedoms are.
In this paper I will show that with certain changes and clarifications to Locke's standards, the responsibilities of existing governments need not be allowed to shrink so drastically. This creates a tradeoff, however. Changing the standards to apply more closely to actual functioning governments has the consequence of making it more difficult to determine the legitimacy of those governments. Some of the clarity of Locke's theoretical model is lost in translating it to apply to actual instances of government. A cornerstone of Locke's political philosophy is the idea that a government holds power legitimately only through the consent of the governed.
The State of Nature says that all people are born equal, but we do everything in our power to overpower one another. We are less likely to fight each other if we know who is in charge, however, Hobbes says don’t know who is in charge and that is why we fight each other more. Hobbes also talks about the “right of nature”. This basically states that if we as humans, need to hurt someone else in order to better ourselves, then it is okay, not wrong. Anything we need to do to better ourselves, even hurt others is acceptable.
At the same time, Jonathan Rauch states "Stripping away states' power to pass same sex marriage ... ... middle of paper ... ...h if they were to be efficient for efficiency is of self interest for power as stated in the rational choice theory. Political Activity is not just a game played within rules; it also often involves efforts to renegotiate the rules. The reinterpretation of the rules also known as meta-policy making is what has made United States the model nation within the world. Federalism is national unity with state diversity in a sense that federalism gives way in recognizing the power of the states. The constitution may be hard to decipher but status quo is not the way to go because when there is a problem it must be solve and putting it off will burn a bigger hole.