There is no absolute definition of law to describe what the law actually is. My definition of law is legal system of rules which a particular country can used to organization the society and defines the rights for obligations of any person. with a view to the development the society and the state also can preservation of security and stability of the state. The theory of political obligation is to have a moral responsibility to obey the laws of the state (Richard and Daivid, 2007). Concerning this point, there are different views among political philosophers. The reasons that I agree to obey the law can be related to self-interest and could demonstrates to comply with legal rules for some reasons other than moral obligations .Would …show more content…
I think the concept of the social contract could be described as a person living in a state of nature with no government in order to secure and conservation self of pain, poor and solitary. Population accepted the contract with the state to achieve the self-protection. which I think seems to be fair in order to secure self-interest. Sharon ,(2002), states that according to Thomas Hobbes, humans would have to voluntarily- give their rights and freedom in order to the contract to succeed. However, I agree that it is obvious that Hobbs’ point of view is more logical that every human nature be likely towards selfishness and irrational instinct. However, I believe that even if people rationality they still need to be controlled by government and obey the law to live safety and peaceful in the state.
I obey the law for the reason that I believe human nature generally tends towards selfishness .I believe that human beings choose to get the greatest benefit for themselves rather than giving it to others and live for themselves. In one way or another people in general are more inclined to have personal advance to get what they want. For example, I believe if people like hold being selfish, they can become enemies and try to destroy each other. In this case, I think that can create human beings ‘are more competition and selfishness are to create violence and civil war to achieve personal gains. I argue that human beings are not capable
The Torah, the Tanak, the Hebrew Bible, and the Pentateuch. No matter how you say it they all mean the same thing. The Torah is the foundation of Judaism: the most sacred documents. The word Torah can mean numerous things. It often simply refers to the T in Tanak. It is most commonly translated to mean “ the law”. There are five books that make up the Torah. These books are referred to as the Five Books of Moses: Exodus, Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The books of the Torah tell the Israelites a story. A story that begins where we begin, and ends before the introduction of the Savoir. It is often questioned, who the author(s) of the Torah is (are). For this question there are generally two main hypotheses: Mosaic Authorship and the Documentary Hypothesis.
Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law in itself is iniquitous and if that law violates human rights and conscience; Certainly, rules are established for us to follow but we as human beings should be able to differentiate the right and the wrong and incase laws need to be violated for the right cause even with hard consequences, breaking the law can be justified; considering the situations and the purposes.
There have been many people that have partaken in the act of not following, or breaking a law that they personally have deemed unjust throughout history, or taken part in civil disobedience . Socrates as well as Dr. Martin Luther King have done this. But the question of whether or not we should be required to follow a law that one personally believes is unjust is very hard to answer. Nevertheless, I believe that we should in fact be able to disobey a law and or a decision that we consider to be unjust. However, in saying this there are some guidelines that come with this. I am not saying that one should just have a complete disregard for the law, which would result in chaos and there would not be a civil society. Nonetheless, what I am
Our society is built off of the concept of a social contract by which the individuals who comprise the society give up certain freedoms in exchange for protection by the government. The government then has a duty to properly balance the conflicting freedoms of its various constituents and ensure that they can enjoy the maximum amount of freedom without interference from the government or from other individuals. Along with the social contract comes the concept of rule of law, an essential tenet of any structured society, whether free or not. In a perfect society, all laws would be constructed off of the social contract, and thus there would be no legitimate reason to oppose them as they would promote maximal freedom and justice. However,
Law and Punishment go hand in hand. There are Laws, which are the system of rules which a particular country or community recognises as regulating the actions of followers, and there are punishments, for when a member of said country/community breaks the rules. Punishment is defined as the infliction of a penalty or to cause pain for an offence. Most of the time it is not a choice as to whether you are part of a law-following community because almost all countries in the world have some kind of law-system and often the minute you turn the age where you are legally responsible or step off the boat, plane or train you are subjected to their laws.
Laws are put in place for means of protection of others and are overall very just and useful in day to day life. Law making is progress and progression and not a single person has a right to break these laws.
It is generally agreed that laws are necessary for the safety and functioning of a community. A good citizen is often defined as one who shows obedience to the laws cast on him by a governing body that is constructed to benefit those residing in that inhabitance. For most people, laws are followed because they perceive them as legitimate and just, and, even if they don’t agree with them morally, they accept the laws as necessary for the good of the community as a whole. Additionally, they consider themselves active participants in democracy and the lawmaking process. Therefore, laws are legitimized by the approval of the people that the laws were implemented to protect them, through their direct and indirect participation in the lawmaking process.
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.
Do we have a moral obligation to defy unjust laws? Individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and many others throughout history certainly thought so. However, I believe that laws exist for a reason. Despite their occasional faults, we should aspire to follow rules, even though we may not always agree with them. If we see flaws, we should address them through legal means like petitioning or voting. Resistance to laws is a detriment to a free society because it sets a bad example, can be ineffective, and raises problematic questions regarding what is right and what is wrong.
Women and men are protected by The Family and Medical Leave Act in the case of things like: family emergencies, serious health conditions, and pregnancies. The law requires an employer to allow twelve unpaid work weeks to be taken in a twelve month period every year. The United States Department of Labor states, “This law covers only certain employers; affects only those employees eligible for the protections of the law; involves entitlement to leave, maintenance of health benefits during leave, and job restoration after leave;. . . ” This may guarantee your job and health benefits to be kept during the twelve week period, but the law does not cover every employer. The law also does not require any pay during the entire twelve weeks. That
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.
Social Contract theory is the idea that in the beginning people lived in the state of nature with no government and laws to regulate them. In order to overcome the issues involved in the state of nature, people entered into agreements to protect themselves and their properties. They did this by uniting, rescinding certain rights under the state of nature, and pledging themselves to an authority that will guarantee certain protections. They all agree to live together under those laws and create a mechanism that enforces the contract and the laws that come with it. Some political theorists, such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, have differing views as to what the state of nature is and what should constitute as a social contract. One
The main expression of the Social Contract Theory is to explore whether there is a legitimate political authority, "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains no." He said political authority in our natural state does not exist, so we need a social contract in a social contract, everyone abandon natural freedom, and obtain freedom of contract; in the process of political participation, only everyone equally renounce all natural freedom, assigned to the collectivity, human beings can get equal
“…No matter how plain a women may be if truth and loyalty are stamped upon her face all will be attracted to her...” Anna Eleanor Roosevelt was born on October 11, 2014 in New York City, New York. She was the only the only daughter of Anna Hall and Elliot Roosevelt; she was the middle child in her trio of siblings. Her brothers were Elliot Roosevelt Jr. and Gracie Hall Roosevelt who were the oldest and youngest siblings respectively. The Roosevelt siblings encountered trauma at a young age. Their mother passed away when Eleanor was only eight years old and their father passed away shortly after, when Eleanor just turned
In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes lays out the hypothetical principal of the state of nature, where human it-self is artificial. It is human nature that people will not be able to love permanently, everyone against everyone power between the strongest. In this nation-state you must be the strongest in order to survive (survival of the fittest). In order to survive there are laws we must follow, to insure of our security because of fear. We were able to suppress our fear, by creating order, to have more order; we must have security, so the social contract appeared.