Is Justice Universal And Never Changing?

Natural Law initially began in Ancient Greece and was an imperative element in society. Numerous philosophers had their own particular perspective of natural law including Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas. They both depict how we should function as human beings and as a society with their opposing perspectives on natural law. I will compare the natural law teachings of Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Aquinas and their philosophy. I will discuss whose teachings are more persuasive and whom I agree with.

In this essay, we will be exploring the idea of democracy in relation to John Rawls’ and Robert Nozick’s conceptions of justice. We will begin by evaluating what each intellectual has written in relation to democracy and then compare the structure of their arguments for their conceptions of justice.

With these natural causes of quarrel, Hobbes concludes that the natural condition of humans is a state of perpetual war of all against all, where no morality exists, and everyone lives in constant fear (p.45). He believes that humans have three motivations for ending this state of war: the fear of death, the desire to have an adequate living and the hope to attain this through one’s labor (p.47). These beliefs become valid because of the use of his examples. One example suggests that people are barbaric to each other. With the absence of international law, strong countries prey on the weakness of weak countries. I believe that his views of moral behavior are very true. Like Hobbes said, people are out for their well-being. If I were to do a favor for someone, I may think I am helping someone out, which I am, but I am probably doing the favor because it is going to make me feel better. It is going to benefit my well being. Hobbes is a famous philosopher whose views were very controversial. But the fact that he lived in a time when the monarchy was the “divine right of kings” (p.42), makes his views valid today. With a different government and new laws, his views appear to be true.

Thomas Hobbes was a philosopher from England whose work and ideas have arguably made him the founder of modern political philosophy. His most famous work is the Leviathan, which he wrote in 1651. In it he describes his view of human nature and hence his view of government. Hobbes’ view of justice is based on his view of what he names the state of nature and the right of nature. Hobbes defines the state of nature as a “war” of everyone against everyone. Hobbes describes the right of nature to be self-preservation. Justice, in order to appease both the state of nature and the right of nature, is then a human construct created out of our drive for self-preservation, at least according to Hobbes. He defines justice as the keeping of valid or enforced

In Hobbes’ version of the state of nature there are no restraints, no standards of morality and justice, and everyone is uninhibited, which ultimately results in a “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Ch. 8 pg 78). Hobbes bases his belief that humans are equal in the assertion that all human beings have equal opportunity and potential in mental and physical strength because “equal time equally bestows on all men in those things they equally apply themselves unto” (Ch 8, pg 76). Even though one man may be stronger than other, the weaker man still has the capabilities to utilize his mental strength and use other strategies. This equality in potential of power extends to the equality that everyone desires the same things. In the state of nature “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and in the way to their end endeavour to destroy or subdue one another,” eventually resulting in a continuous state of war (Ch 8 pg 76). This notion of competition is the key that further highlights why humans are equal: linking the state of nature with the state of war causes everyone to exist in an equal, perpetual state of conflict with one

In Hobbes….he reveals how firmly he disagrees with traditional natural law theorists, Hobbes sates that, “I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death.” In other words, Hobbes reveals that he believes that men cannot be satisfied by the “cultivation of virtue” as a political end; man will fight for more power until the fight itself kills them. According to source Hobbes states that, “All men have in common is the continual fear and danger of violent death” (Hobbes, 1956: Ch.13, 107-108). Hobbes is basically stating that because death is less likely to occur when there is peace, men will therefore desire a peaceful society only because it is in their best interest. Source , Hobbes states that, “The passions that incline men to peace are fear of death, desire of such tings are necessary to commodious living, and a hope by their industry to obtain them.” These are prime examples of where the tradition view towards natural law contrasts with Hobbes theory. Natural law tradition generally believes it is human nature to have peace, and avoid evil, where Hobbes on the other hands believes man is only interested in having peace because it is for his own benefit. In current terms, Hobbes has a more realist view on natural law tradition.

He does this to argue that men must honor their contracts. Hobbes is not hesitant to point out that the right of nature is “that men perform their covenants made; without which covenants are in vain, and but empty words” (XV, par. 1) When men honor there contracts, it promotes a civil society. Hobbes supports this claim with the example that “for where no covenant hath preceded, there hath no right to everything and consequently, no action can be unjust” (XV, par. 1). This supports the idea that in order to promote a state of peace, a system of rules needs to be established. And if rules are not established, mens actions cannot be considered unjust. Hobbes utilizes appeals to logos to argue that the third law of nature is required in order to maintain a civil society because men are naturally at a state of war and need a contract to abide

i.e. If I promise not to hurt you and you promise not to hurt me then neither of us gets hurt and we’re both happy. And this is what Hobbes believes to be the basis of our desire to keep the laws set out by the state – we should avoid chaos because it is not in our best interests therefore we should keep the laws.

Throughout the course readings, a lot of information was provided on how people talk about and engage with the word ‘race’. It is eye opening how people in power use ‘race’ to gain benefits without taking into consideration how different ‘choices’ impact the lives of racialize bodies. Furthermore, the articles provided others’ perspectives that help to understand and clarify why racialized people have been subjected to oppression and ‘racism’ in history. “Rethinking Global Justice” by Julia Sudbury is not different than the other course readings. The article provided an interesting point of view in relation to Black women’s experiences in the prison system in US and Canada and how this system supports these same ideas – exploitation of racialized

Hobbes’ “The Right of Nature”, or jus natural, is one’s liberty to preserve his own nature (86). The right then breaks down into liberty, the law of nature, the fundamental law of nature, and the second law of nature (as well as other in-between steps). The law of nature is “a precept… found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do, that, which is destructive of his life, or taketh away the means of preserving the same....” (86). Basically, any “right of nature” stems from reason, which is common knowledge. Hobbes believes that human beings, being reasonable, will discern their right to self-preservation. He furthers his explanation of the laws with the concept of The fundamental law of nature. The fundamental law states, “every man, ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and advantages of war.” The law furthers into two parts, the first is to “seek peace, and follow it,” while the second is to, “defend ourselves”(87). Hobbes’ laws are all

This leads us to Hobbes’ view on the natural state of humans. He believes that without a common power to govern them, men are in a condition of war. In this state, all men are other men’s enemies. This brings rise to the idea ‘Everyone is governed by his own reason…in preserving his life against

The law of nature essentially forbids humans from committing an act that would be reprehensible to his well being. This left humans to act in a way that was enforced by the a law. Hobbes analyzed both of these human natures and came to the conclusion that the ideal way for humans to exist within a peaceful environment would be be through the law of nature. In order for humans to live by the standards of the law of nature, humans must surrender their rights to a supreme leader (or small assembly)- this surrender is known as a social contract. Hobbes explained that people would would simple put their “Right[s] aside, either by simply renouncing it, or by transferring it to another” The social contract would involve all of the members of society to transfer their power to the all mighty leader. This all mighty leader would have complete control over the society, with no input from the members of societies.

I believe like Hobbes that living in this state of nature has a number of consequences. Nothing in the world can be considered as essentially good or evil. So in a state of nature right and wrong is simply what is right or wrong to each individual person, since there is no government or laws that tell us right from wrong. The only way people can make promises with each other is by way of contract, which is a mutual exchanging of rights. There is a special circumstance of this contract called a covenant. A covenant is a contract in which one person will give up one of his rights to somebody under the condition that the other person’s right will be given to him at a later time. Covenants are the basis of all laws, rights to property, and most aspects in a civil society. However, according to Hobbes, all covenants between people that live in a state of nature are objectionable because “He that performs the first has no assurance the other will perform after.” (Leviathan pg.115) This basically means that because people aren’t bound by any laws, the second person doesn’t have any incentive to keep his end of the covenant, as he won’t be punished for going back against his word. Hobbes’ prospects for humanity

While Hobbes uses Laws of Nature in his logical argument, they appear to be less universally binding compared to Locke’s. Indeed, they specifically apply in circumstances where an individual’s life feels secure. In principle however, humans are generally inclined to comply with them. Conversely, in the practical life situation, the desire for self preservation takes precedence. Hence, a civil society

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)