Normality and Coercion: Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls

Natural law is a concept with a long history dating back to the Greco-Roman philosophers. Despite some variations among philosophers one point of agreement was understood as “that process in nature by which human beings, through the use of sound reason, were able to perceive what was morally right

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

Thus, small groups invite invaders and foster dissent. Hobbes to accepted that man bestowing his power in one leader, “is more than consent, or concord; it is a real unity of them all, in one every man, I authorize and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him, and authorize all his actions in like manner.” (CWT III, 38). The preceding quote was Hobbes’s opinion of a social contract. This, Hobbes believed, was essential to man escaping the state of nature, and to the formation of a responsible government.

Aristotle and Thomas Hobbes are two of the most influential political theorists in history. Each philosopher has shaped mankind’s political thought and both have earned the title of a “Father” of political thought. Aristotle and Hobbes contributed to the world of political thought with differing dogmas. They both stand on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Aristotle claims that man is naturally a social being and therefore a political animal. Furthermore, he understands man as controlled towards the community. Hobbes claims the exact opposite. Man is naturally ordered towards the individual and that individual is himself, according to Hobbes.

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

Thomas Hobbes was the first philosopher to connect the philosophical commitments to politics. He offers a distinctive definition to what man needs in life which is a successful means to a conclusion. He eloquently defines the social contract of man after defining the intentions of man. This paper will account for why Hobbes felt that man was inherently empowered to preserve life through all means necessary, and how he creates an authorization for an absolute sovereign authority to help keep peace and preserve life. Hobbes first defines the nature of man. Inherently man is evil. He will do whatever is morally permissible to self preservation. This definition helps us understand the argument of why Hobbes was pessimistic of man, and

Thomas Hobbes describes his views on human nature and his ideal government in Leviathan. He believes human nature is antagonistic, and condemns man to a life of violence and misery without strong government. In contrast to animals, who are able to live together in a society without a coercive power, Hobbes believes that men are unable to coexist peacefully without a greater authority because they are confrontational by nature. “In the nature of man”, Hobbes says “there are three principal causes of quarrel: first, competition; secondly, diffidence, thirdly, glory” and then he goes on to list man’s primary aims for each being gain, safety and reputation (Hobbes, Leviathan, 13, 6).

“Positive” law defines legal liability (or culpability), but many theorists subscribe to concepts of “natural” law. What is “Positive” law? “Natural” law? How are they different?

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

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.

Amidst the bloodshed of the English Civil War, Thomas Hobbes realizes the chaotic state of humanity, which gravitates towards the greatest evil. Hobbes’ underlying premises of human nature–equality, egotism, and competition–result in a universal war among men in their natural state. In order to escape anarchy, Hobbes employs an absolute sovereignty. The people willingly enter a social contract with one another, relinquishing their rights to the sovereign. For Hobbes, only the omnipotent sovereign or “Leviathan” will ensure mankind’s safety and security. The following essay will, firstly, examine Hobbes’ pessimistic premises of human nature (equality, egotism, and competition), in contrast with John Locke’s charitable views of humanity;

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)

This perspective is essentially materialist and rather careful interpretation of the human conditions is radical and far-reaching in the history of political though and particularly disagrees with Locke’s. Unlike Locke’s perspective therefore, self-interest is the dominant theme of Hobbes’ perspective of the state of nature (Hobbes, 1994).

Thomas Hobbes and Niccolò Machiavelli are known to be philosophers whom have helped to develop the views of political power and human nature. Both men had very different views from one another, yet at the same time they did indeed have many similarities. From having opposite views on Political Power, to having alike views on Human Nature, Hobbes and Machiavelli are men whom have shaped political philosophy throughout our time. Through the works of Machiavelli’s, The Prince and Hobbes’ Leviathan their views are clearly portrayed and explained with great depth. These works have helped change the way we see our modern day society.

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.