Michel Foucault 's Philosophy Of Law

Michel Foucault and Erving Goffman’s work was centralised around there two different concepts of how your identity is formed through the process of power and expert knowledge. This Essay will discuss the ideas of Michel Foucault who was a French Social Theorist. His theories addressed the relationship between power and knowledge and how both of these are used as a form of social control through society. The essay will look at Foucault’s work in The Body and Sexuality, Madness and Civilisation and Discipline and Punish which displays how he conceptualised Power and identity on a Marxist and macro basis of study. The Essay will also address the Ideas of Erving Goffman who was A Canadian Born Sociologist who’s key study was what

This part of the paper will provide a comparison with a theorist previously discussed in a lecture. The theorist with whom Michael Foucault’s arguments will be compared to is Emile Durkheim. Durkheim sees crime as functional. He says that if there was no crime, all our values would be dispersed--these values are laws. These laws are observed by sanctions and punishments attached to it. However, in order for these laws to exist, there must be a punishment, thus, for there to be a punishment, there has to be crime. Repressive law, according to this classical theorist was based on punishing for the evil doing of the criminal through revenge. Durkheim believes that a crime is not collective and when one goes against the core values of society, one threatens the entire order of society. Therefore, this theorist would agree with Foucault that when disciplining a criminal, he or she should be stripped of their freedom and when

First, Hobbes says that nature is chaos. There are no rules, and the only means of protection are the strengths of each individual. There is no trust among anyone, and each individual only cares about his or herself. Hobbes develops the right of nature, or self-preservation, out of these circumstances. Each individual has a right to think of self-preservation in a world where no one can be trusted. One might think that this wouldn’t fix the problem of the natural chaos. However, Hobbes explains that the focus on self-preservation will be so powerful that individuals will make covenants that will be adhered to because they preserve everyone and hence oneself. This is in accordance with Hobbes’ concept of the laws of nature. He explains the laws of nature to be: seek peace, forfeit rights, and keep covenants. Humans pursuing self-preservation would realize that by seeking peace and forfeiting rights such as taking what one wanted from others as one saw fit self-preservation is easier and more achievable. This also requires the formation of governments to enforce the covenants made. Otherwise, there would be no way to know for certain that the covenants would be respected and upheld. With the formation of government come concepts such as justice. Hobbes bases his definition of justice on the very thing that created the government: covenants, and the keeping of those valid or

The Natural Laws and Contracts that Hobbes introduces that first a definition of man that leads to a conclusion to

PHL 612 Philosophy of Law [Calendar Description]: What is law? What makes something a legal norm? Should

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both share the common vision of the role of a social contract to maintain order in a state. However, their philosophies were cognizant of a sharp contrasting concept of human nature. This essay aims to compare and contrast the social contracts of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in respect to their definition of natural law. This essay will first analyze the pessimistic Hobbesian approach to the state of nature, the inherit optimistic approach of Locke, and then observe how their definitions directly affect their social contract.

Foucault address the changing definition of crime and how power is exerted through the enforcement of punishment. During the monarchy, kings and queens showed their power and authority of the people by determining what punishment someone would receive for their actions. In the current political system, judges and juries are in the position to make these decisions. Judgement is the current system is based on motives and intent rather than on the severity of the crime alone. We care more about the psychological state of the individual and want to be able to change the person's soul to better respect society. The quote below addresses how punishment uses a variety of specializations and how the individual's mental state is molded to fit into standards we have created today.

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.

Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very different views on the social contract largely based on their fundamental views of the state of nature in humanity. These basic views of natural human nature cause Hobbes and Rousseau to have views on opposite sides of the spectrum, based on two controversial speculations, that human is inherently good or that human is inherently inclined towards egotism and perpetual insecurity. Due to his belief that they are of this nature, Hobbes viewed an all-powerful sovereign of a rather totalarianistic nature to be necessary. Rousseau on the other hand, viewed that the sovereign should represent the common will of the people, the sovereign being agreed upon by all constituents. It is my assertion

Hobbes claims that man has desires for order and security inborn. In order to prevent poverty and suffering, people took a part in a contract. In other words, it is an agreement among people through which ordered society maintained. They willingly leave all their rights and independence to the authority because of the social contract which states obedience. In Leviathan, Hobbes states that “The mutual transferring of right is that which men call contract” (93). On the other hand, for Rousseau, after people began to live together, property is invented and the invention of property means that humanity fall from grace out of the state of nature and people surrendered their freedoms and rights to the society as a whole that Rousseau termed as general will. However, this problem is solved by the social contract. According to The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he endeavours to mention that “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before”(11). Consequently, Hobbes’ social contract depends on the submission, on the other hand Rousseau’s social contract based on the

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

Thomas Hobbes creates a clear idea of the social contract theory in which the social contract is a collective agreement where everyone in the state of nature comes together and sacrifices all their liberty in return to security. “In return, the State promises to exercise its absolute power to maintain a state of peace (by punishing deviants, etc.)” So are the power and the ability of the state making people obey to the laws or is there a wider context to this? I am going to look at the different factors to this argument including a wide range of critiques about Hobbes’ theory to see whether or not his theory is convincing reason for constantly obeying the law.

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

The development of the selected passage into discussion about the need for a ‘social contract’ expresses how ultimately Hobbes saw society as being the only solution to the state of nature. This is in direct contrast to Rousseau who in claiming that ‘Hobbes was taking socialized persons and simply imagining them living outside of the society in which they were raised’ saw society as the problem and being in a state of nature as the solution. Rousseau however didn’t completely disagree with Hobbe’s concept of man as described in this passage as being selfish and egotistical, rather he illustrates his image through the argument that society is the driving force transforming the ‘natural man’ into Hobbe’s materialist interpretation. Contrasting Rousseau’s more positive stance to Hobbe’s somewhat pessimistic state of nature “brings into focus the goodness of peace” (James Madison), which further compliments the location of the passage and the central features of the desirability of peace that proceed it.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau are in agreement that the idea of the state of nature existed before the inception of the political society. However, their view is very different from the concept of the natural state of man. On one hand, Hobbes believes that humans are cruel, malicious and pathetic such that everyone acts in a way that pleases them regardless of whether they pose a risk to others or not (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012). Hobbes describes men as enemies of each other and that the only thing that pushes them to make peace is the fear of death and necessities that would guarantee them a decent life. It is the passion for self-regard and reputation that necessitates the need to a political institution to govern humans (Hobbes & Malcolm, 2012).