Why Freedom And Equality Is An Artificial Creation Created By The Political Institution

This is not an easy motion to debate on. Thus, this piece of writing will mention, discuss and bring forward the irrationality of choosing either freedom over equality or visa versa, without having a harmonious counterbalance between the two factors, implemented by a regulatory body. It will also include examples of countries which "total freedom" or "total equality" is in practice, where the search for total freedom led to total anarchy, or the pursuit for total equality curtailed the freedom in all areas of life. This short writing will be concluded with a personal view.

As per the 1948 Universal announcement of human rights, all individuals regardless of their background are all born equal before the law. This declaration made by the powerful nations and signed by all nations strong and weak that belong to the United Nations reflects the thoughts of many earlier philosophers to include the 16th & 17th Century Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke. However, each philosopher -based on their times and experiences gave a different value to how men use their freedom and equality in presence of the other in a society, and in relation to political authority. As determinant of his freedom to act and think, the three writings focused on the will of man, the promise that shapes the social contract, and the

I intend to discuss these issues while also discussing why it is important for these issues to be highlighted in this document. Firstly, the issues of personal rights are acknowledged at the beginning of the document. “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good” . At this time, to be equal meant the end of legal differences.

The shared passion of visionaries, thinkers, and writers profoundly influence society in the modern world and hold in their hands the ability to craft a better future. They inspire new ,, and sometimes even revolution. Two documents of the 18th century, The Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of man established and angle for which we view human rights, liberties, and human freedoms. While the underlying motivations of the declarations each have a distinct purpose, the intent to establish universal human rights parallel and often mimic one another in language and meaning. Both documents however have interesting contradictions and inconsistences with regards to whom the liberties should apply, from whom the authority is derived and the motivations behind the drafting of each respective declaration.

It is also relevant to point out that under Locke’s theory all men are created equal in the sense that we all are entitled to these rights (life, liberty, and property), and this is also the case with the rights of the Declaration of Independence (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). Because humans are born with these universal rights, Locke argued that a universal standard of morality was present even during the “State of Nature”.

In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)

My conclusion is that freedom is the main part of our life , but when there are people that couldn’t even have their freedom, that really mean that they already lose their right . People should have their freedom to speak , to read ,and to join clubs that they want to . And the main theme of this essay is that all living things should be treated equally and it can bring a better atmosphere to the world

The authors talk about the laws and history as shaping the moral views of society, those who are in authority get to dictate what is right from what is wrong. The system is base on what those in power determine is the moral rule.

Introduction Typically, the Second Treatise of Government written by John Locke delves into different concepts of individual rights and how those liberties are linked to the government and its policies. Locke starts by defining the natural state which focuses on the rights that a person has before a government intervenes. Locke’s argument is mainly based on the natural law which is effective when it empowers individuals to do what is right. Additionally, his ideas are based on the fact that people simply seek government intervention to protect their property. This essay analyzes Locke’s argument in the Second Treatise of Government on different aspects of government and law.

In our society, the word “equality” has essentially an open definition. As a result, a myriad of conflicts have ensued over which definition is the most “correct” and ideal to preserve the rights of the people. Today society is at a constant battle for curing the world of inequality, wether it be economic, racial, religious or social. The author of “On Democracy”,Robert Dahl, crafts and employs theories to substantiate the extent to which a person has natural fundamental rights, and highlights the idea that all people have equal claims to social happiness as well. First Dahl explains what it is to claim 'intrinsic equality' as well to ensure the extent to which a person has their natural rights protected, then he conveys that in our society

Throughout our history of social and political thought, the evaluation of the concepts of utility and social contracts are paramount considerations for the configuration of a just society and deciding viable forms of governance. Each perspective considers the state of human nature and derives a method for maintaining peace

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” These opening words of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights express a concept of man which underpins the framework of human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration and the two international covenants of Human Rights. Western political traditions is a concept that it derives from, is in harmony with moral and social teachings to be found in many other traditions and patterns of belief.

These documents, at the same time, take back the sociopolitical thought that had been developped in a long tradition, and whose most striking stages are: the supreme value of reason as basis for any sociopolitical relation such as we discover at the Greek Polis and such as it is presented by the great thinkers Plato and Aristotle; the intrinsic value of human person, son of the same Christian God, and capable, because of his freedom, either of salvation or of condemnation, as it was understood by the main thinkers in the Middle Ages; the human Individual, considered as a juridical subject, capable of making contracts and assuming rights and duties and, therefore, as the last foundation of any sociopolitical organization, as he was thought by the liberal tradition embodied by Hobbes, Locke and the Encyclopedists. The concrete praxis of these theoretical principles in democratic societies and nations where the Individuals are the cause and the end of this sociopolitical order such as we find in Great Britain, Switzerland, Holland, USA, France, Sweeden, Norwegen, Canada and many other nations throughout the five continents.

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.