In his work “Liberty against the Law: Some Seventeenth-Century Controversies” published in 1996, Christopher Hill reassessed the outcome of the English Civil War and asked one introspective question: “Liberty for what, and for whom?” Some people may argue that law limits liberty for everyone due to the restrictions it imposes in today’s society. However, it should not be denied that law does protect freedom and liberty in certain circumstances. In fact, there exists a very complex relationship between law and liberty where each of them complements and limits the other. Liberty no longer exists if there are no legal systems. At the same time, legal systems that are not based on protecting citizens’ liberty are not serving for the true purpose of law. In his work “Elements of the Philosophy of Right” published in 1819, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel pointed out that liberty is the fundamental of law and law is a philosophical form of liberty. Law and liberty cannot exist without one another. In my opinion, the relationship between law and liberty can be classified into two categories: justified legal systems protect freedom while unjustified legal systems limit or even destroy freedom.
Justified legal systems protect freedom by endowing people with basic human rights. Society has to progress based on standards and rules set by justified legal systems. Without these standards and rules, freedom will then not be ensured. Plato once said that “If a man is born divinely gifted that he could naturally apprehend the truth, he would have no need of laws to rule over him; but there is no such mind anyway or at least not much; therefore we must have law.” Thomas Hobbes also indicated in “Leviathan” that freedom should be based on national se...
... middle of paper ...
...and basic rights are not for the majority, there will always be a group of outlaws or social bandits who accelerate the revolutionary movements and lead people to overthrow tyranny and hierarchy set up by the current law enforcers.
Last but not least, it is undeniable that justified legal systems do restrict liberty in some certain circumstances and it is necessary. Liberty does not imply that one can do everything he or she wants to do. Liberty, at the same time, does constrain human behaviors since liberty also means that one has the right to resist others from doing things that he or she does not want to suffer from. Hence, freedom is not always free and there will be no liberty if there is no minimum level of restrictions. In conclusion, liberty cannot exist without law while justified law must ensure liberty for everyone. Liberty and law complement each other.
On this world, laws can be very important and can be the solution for keeping this nation and other countries together. Without laws, people would just do whatever they want to do and not think twice about it for the simple fact that they would know that there will not be any major consequences. Martin proves why these laws are so important to us and he also explains how they are important. There are many points which he proves that I totally agree with and there are also some things that I do not necessarily agree with
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
Laws are structured and implemented to benefit the masses. Unfortunately this objective is not always achieved. The constitution of the states is considered the best work of law yet it is unable to save the life of a child. Clearly the problem of violence is turning more into a socio-cultural and psychological problem than a legal one. However laws still need to be implemented justly in order to preserve the freedom and rights of me...
There is no justice when humans are living in the state of mere nature in “this war of every man against every man...nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong or just and unjust have there no place.”(188) These are the conditions that constitute mere nature. Justice has to battle all of human desire just to begin to establish a foothold in an arena where force and fraud are the supreme virtues.(188) Anything and everything is allowed in mere nature and absolute liberty “without impediment”(189) is used accordingly, as ones own reason dictates. When Human desires and aversions are pursued for only self preservation this puts us in a state of perpetual war with one another on an individual level, each of us doing whatever is necessary to survive. Therefore to establish justice is to first institute laws and government, but before this can be done you have to decide who or what entity has the right to do so? How is this power transferred to them? And at what
Throughout history, the effects of the unequal distribution of power and justice within societies have become apparent through the failure of governments, resulting in the creation of theories regarding ways to balance the amount of power given and the way in which justice is enforced. Due to this need for change, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke created two separate theories in which the concept of a social contract is used to determine the ways in which a government can govern without forfeiting justice. In this essay, the relationship between force, morality, and rights within both theories will be investigated in order to determine the most beneficial format for society based on the ideas of the natural condition of mankind, the rights of the government, and the rights of the governed. Through this examination of ideas, a conclusion may be made concerning the ideal form of government to preside over society today.
John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective.
There is a delicate balance between Natural and Positive law. Both are equally important in order to have a thriving society. I believe that lawmakers and enforcers need to take each situation one step at a time. If a society becomes too engulfed in Natural law then there is higher potential for chaos, however if the same society becomes too heavily involved in Positive law then there would be far too much government control. I think that the government should be there to protect the natural rights of the individual as well as provide a set of enforced rules to keep the individuals from violating the natural rights of others.
...people know with surety that they are going to be protected from evil and the wrongdoers so the government should be obliged to create a Justice system which ensures fairness and equality. Moreover it should also be able to judge without bias and partiality for the betterment of its state.
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.
The rule of law does not have a precise definition. Often, the term operates as a catch-all for other conceptions of which the relevance to philosophical and political theory is hard to define. Yet at the same time, it is difficult to find out what the cash value of the concept is in helping to understand how best to fashion human relationships. It has been viewed in very diverse ways. One central clue to the meaning of the ‘rule of law’ is that it requires that there be some sort of rules. The rule of law in its most basic form is the principle that no individual is above the law and everyone must answer to it. The major legacy of the Constitutional system is that the rule of law is viewed as a doctrine that no individual stands above the law, and that all rulers are answerable to the law. The rule of law is a theory of governance relying upon a series of legal and social constraints designed to encourage order and to prevent arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of government powers.
It is important to distinguish between freedom’s kinds of values, because in defining a system of government, the attitude towards freedom is a key component. If freedom has no independent value, different schools of political thought might have the standpoint, that we should not value freedom at all, only the things that it is means to. Some might think that they know better what is good for people, and feel justified in constraining people’s freedom. We intuitively value freedom, and usually do not even notice, that we have it, because it woven through so much of our everyday life. We take freedom for granted, even though in some countries it is not so trivial. It is not enough to feel that freedom is our basic right, but to understand why it is so important, and why freedom can not be replaced by the specific ends one might think it is means to. I will argue, that freedom does have independent value. First I will talk about the non-independent value of freedom, and look at the different independent values, then concentrate on the non-specific instrumental value. I am going to look at claims where Dworkin and Kymlicka were wrong, and evaluate Ian Carter’s standpoint.
According to Aristotle, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual”, suggesting every member of society, even a ruler, must abide by and follow the law. The rule of law is linked to the principle of justice, meaning that everyone within a society (including both private citizens and government officials) are subject to the law, and that those laws are administered fairly and justly. The intention of the rule of law is to protect against arbitrary governance. It is the basic underpinning of a free society.
According to Aristotle, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual”, suggesting every member of society, even a ruler, must abide by and follow the law. The rule of law is linked to the principle of justice, meaning that everyone within a society (including both private citizens and government officials) are subject to the law, and that those laws are administered fairly and justly. The intention of the rule of law is to protect against arbitrary governance. It is the basic underpinning of a free society.
Law is one of the most important elements that transform humans from mere beasts into intelligent and special beings. Law tells us what is right and wrong and how we, humans, should act to achieve a peaceful society while enjoying individual freedoms. The key to a successful nation is a firm, strong, and fair code of high laws that provides equal and just freedom to all citizens of the country. A strong government is as important as a firm code of law as a government is a backbone of a country and of the laws. A government is a system that executes and determines its laws. As much as fair laws are important, a capable government that will not go corrupt and provide fair services holds a vital role in building and maintaining a strong country.