This difference of opinion flows through to their views on social contract and this essay will discuss this difference in theory as Locke is of the belief that government is necessary in order to preserve natural law, and on the contrary, Hobbes sees government as necessary in order to control natural law. Both Hobbes and Locke theorise that as the laws of nature do not afford sufficient security everyone has to rely on their own mental and physical strength to defend themselves so they enter into a social contract whereby an agreement by individuals results in the formation of the state or of organized society. The prime motive for the social contract is the desire for protection, but it does entail the surrendering of some or all personal liberties. Whilst Hobbes and Locke differ on different aspects of natural law and social contract, both agree that mutual consent through social contract
A Market Society is Ethically better than an Aristocratic Society The concept of market society Scholars come up with several questions in the quest to evaluate what approaches should be taken to establish the relationship between the moral order and the market. For instance, different scholars have examined the set of moral orders upon which the concept of capitalism is based. This aspect in addition to a distinctive set of beliefs, social bonds, and habits stand out clearly in the market and various market structures. This paper shall begin by evaluation of how Hirschman characterised contradicting views concerning the market, which included civilisation, feeble effects on society, and destruction. The study shall also involve a review of various studies to bring an intersection of sociology, political economics, and economics itself in a bid to demonstrate how these subjects exist as theories of market society and moral ethics behind the same.
It can be argued from the anarchist perspective that the state is an oppressive body, which undermines human reason and the capacity for self governance. Laws do not solve the problem, rather they make individuals dependant on outside authorities, to regulate out lives and provide answers for problems that may arise. Therefore, we lose our reason and ability to think for ourselves, we lose out natural autonomy. Thus a state has the opportunity to put a moral code upon us which we cannot question as we become dependant on the rules of the state. Godwin argued that human beings are naturally rational and have the
Waltz argues in favor of this reinterpretation in order to make political realism a more accurate theory of international politics. He suggests a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a restriction on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. This system is comparable to a microeconomic model in which firms accept both their prices and quantity based on the market. Neorealists endeavor to simplify explanations of behavior with a view to explaining and predicting general tendencies better. They stress the structure of the international system in their analyses as a clarifying feature over states, which are emphasized by earlier realists, and over the natural characteristics of human beings.
Unlike many social theorists, Emile Durkheim saw punishment as the central mechanism in the enforcement of ‘social and moral solidarity,’ which were “fundamental conditions of collective life and social cohesion,” forming what Durkheim calls the ‘collective conscience’ (23). This ‘collective conscience’ of shared beliefs and moral attitudes functioned as the unifying force within society, operating the foundations of penal sanctioning, and punishment. Durkheim argues that “crimes are those acts which seriously violate a society’s collective conscience,” essentially “ fundamental moral codes which society holds sacred, and they provoke punishment for this reason” (29). In this nature, the act of punishing the accused becomes a re-established collective expression ofsocial values . In relation to vagrancy law, there are two main idea’s which could be enforced in respect to Durkheimian theory; Society and Law could define vagrants as those who rightfully defy the collective conscience or, sanction and define vagrants under unconditional terms,
Civil Bisobedience A quote regarding the role of the individual in society from Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience (1849) states that “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” The question in regard to the individual inquires when one should disobey authority, if ever. Civil Disobedience is Thoreau’s way of not only implying, but putting directly forth his belief that, yes, in fact, one should disobey authority under certain circumstances; those circumstances subsisting for the better of society’s equality. The quote portrayed is informing that, if the law is requiring you to practice injusticeness and unfairness to another – due to
They are both very complex and in order to understand them fully as well as to be able to compare and contrast they need to be looked at in much greater detail. Of course in order to look at an ideological analysis of anomie and alienation it is important to firstly examine their classical meanings as theorised by Marx and Durkheim. Both Marx’s alienation and Durkheim’s anomie are similar psychological states and for both were metaphors for a radical attack on the dominant institutions and values of industrial society. They criticise similar behaviour but from different view points with Marx looking more at the problems of power and change compared to Durkheim who looked at the problems of the maintenance of order. A clear similarity to Marx’s alienation and Durkhiem’s anomie is that they both critically describe states of social order from utopian standards.
It also refers to the state of mind required in order to operate effectively as a social anthropologist. Anthropological training includes making assessments of and therefore becoming aware of one's own class assumptions, so that these can be set aside from conclusions reached about other societies. This may be compared to ethnocentric biases or the "neutral axiology" required by Max Weber. In addition, a Classless society is the ultimate of social organization, likely to happen when true communism is achieved. According to Karl Marx (1818– 83), the primary function of the state is to repress the lower classes of society in the interests of the ruling class.
Crime is often the result of offering society-demeaning work with little sense of creativity. Laws that are passed on reflect the wishes and ideologies of the ruling classes. Thus for Marxists punishment for a crime may depend and vary according to the social class of the perpetrator. Modern Marxists point to education and the media as socialising agencies, which delude the working class into conforming to a social order, which works against its real interests. From a Marxist point of view laws are made by the state, which represent the interests of the ruling class.
It focuses on how people come together to create society. It focuses on whether actions are good for the equilibrium of society, these are called functions. It also focuses on things that undermine the equilibrium, these are called dysfunctions. For example functionalist Conflict theory do not see society as whole coming together well for one purpose. It focuses on class conflict.