Legal Positivists : Legal Positivism

Thomas Hobbes, is regarded as one of a handful of truly great political philosophers, Hobbes is famous for his early and the elaborate development of the social contract theory. This was the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal, “to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated rational, free, and equal persons” (). Hobbes believed that the only true and correct form of government was the absolute monarchy that was on order to be strong enough to hold humanity’s

     Essentially what Hobbes is saying by all of this is that human beings are not fit to govern themselves. The notion of the social contract serves the purpose of saving us from ourselves because, according to Hobbes, humans are not able to do that on their own. The idea of acting on behalf of the common good is, while comprehensible in theory, impossible for humans to execute.

Legalism is a philosophical practice with harsh punishments and fruitful rewards. The philosophy was beneficial because people understood the rules and followed them but at the cost of the general happiness of the people and the innovations of many people which ultimately holds back human development. One of the benefits of Legalism is that it is very easy for the people understand. They must follow the law or be punished greatly for it.

This is the major difference between positivist and natural law thinkers. Natural law is the combination of laws and morals while legal positivism is the seperation of laws and morals. Legal positivism declares that morality is irrelevant to the identification of what is valid law and that the criteria for the validity of a legal rule or law in a society is that it has the warrant of the sovereign and will be enforced by the sovereign and its agents. Raz, a positivist, stated that ‘the validity of a law can never depend on its morality’ 6 Positive law or positivism is

However Thomas Hobbes saw humans as naturally selfish and quick to fight. He believed people lived in a state of nature which meant everyone had a right to everything. Hobbes was more concerned with protection and order than rights. The social contract was an agreement in which both sides agreed to something in order to reach a shared goal. He believed that once the people agreed to hand over power in exchange for protection, they lost the right to overthrow, replace, or even question the government.

Thomas Hobbes was a divisive figure in his day and remains so up to today. Hobbes’s masterpiece, Leviathan, offended his contemporary thinkers with the implications of his view of human nature and his theology. From this pessimistic view of the natural state of man, Hobbes derives a social contract in order to avoid civil war and violence among men. Hobbes views his work as laying out the moral framework for a stable state. In reality, Hobbes was misconstruing a social contract that greatly benefited the state based on a misunderstanding of civil society and the nature and morality of man.

Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher published his masterwork, the Leviathan, in 1651. This book influenced western philosophy with its view on the Social Contract theory. A social contract

Natural law theory is based on human nature and its predisposition to do good. The determination of what’s good and evil, however, is often drawn

Thomas Hobbes was born on April fifth,1588 in Wiltshire, England. With his education, he began his career easily as a tutor, then philosopher, and published his most famous text 'Leviathan'. His main concern was the problem of social and political order: how human beings can live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of civil conflict. The criteria for his social contract is that individuals should give their obedience to an "unaccountable sovereign": a person or

Natural law theorists believe that all law must be morally justified if it can be legitimised as law at all. Legal positivism means the simple contention that it is in no sense a necessary truth that laws reproduce or satisfy certain demands of morality, though in fact they have otherwise done so. (Hart, DATE)

When speaking about Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, they were both two of the greatest political theorists to ever live. They both provided insightful information on how exactly our government should govern us. Both of these political theorists had some sort of influence on the development of the government of the United States. In the context of this paper, the differences and similarities between the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke will be noted and explained. Although they do have some similarities, Hobbes and Locke take different positions when it comes to the state of nature.

Thomas Hobbes was one of the most influential philosophers of all time. He had many interesting ideas that shaped philosophy and the way we see it today. Although Socrates and Hobbes have different ideas they were both great philosophers and did share some ideas in common. Like Socrates, Hobbes believes in being a moral person who obeys the laws. Following the law and doing what’s right is Important to both philosophers and shows us how Hobbes ideology’s supports Socrates in his conclusion from the play Crito. In the Leviathan, By Thomas Hobbes one can see the social contract theory which states that if one is living under that contract then they must obey all laws and must not break them. Socrates didn’t escape the cell because of fear of

Thomas Hobbes believed that the government should essentially limit itself to the protection of property and persons. Hobbes thought that power derived from the office, not from the people. Things like virtue, social equality, and welfare were not important. To protect themselves and their government Hobbes believed that it was imperative, natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain security of self-preservation. This is called the Social Contract. The concept of the Social Contract Theory is that, in the beginning, man lived in the state of nature where life was, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (page 619). In this state every

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

Thomas Hobbes implies to the idea of social contract to resolve the problem of war and disorder. If social contract were not created, there would be no law. If there’s no law, the