Rudolf von Jhering, a German jurist recognised law as a means of ordering society in a situation where there are many competing interests, not all economic. His view was that legal developments were driven by the constant tussle between individuals and groups within society to have their interests portrayed and supported by the law. He expressed that law could be used in self-interest by individuals and groups in order to achieve advances in their own purposes. As a result, the law acts to determine the true balance between different interests by examining the value of each. The American legal scholar, Roscoe Pound, was influenced by Jhering.
Government Policies Hand-out 1. Parliament: The role of parliament is a necessary part of UK politics. Parliament has to scrutinise the work of government, they do this by questioning the government ministers and having debates to view the proposed laws and amendments to legislation. Decisions are often made via a vote. Smaller groups will look at specific policy issues and legislation in detail.
He argued that capital society and social order are all link to a capital system to human beings. Durkheim on the other hand, argued that sociology should be look at social facts as objects. Roles and institutions act like bodily organs, each depending on other. The world should be divided into subjective and objective, regarding society as a reality in itself. Durkheim sees anomie as responsible for the world’s disorder of economics- the lack of morality and regulation resulted in overpowering the weak; thus, he feels that only norms can prevent the abuse of power and calls for regulation and equal opportunity from birth- the greater the equal opportunity the less need for restraint.
Chuang Tzu believed that how we perceive things are directly related to each of our separate pasts, or our “paths”. Also, that we need to realized that our conclusions and dispositions would be completely different had we experienced another past, even possibly just one single instance. Confucius believed that all things are naturally good. It is only if you haven’t pursued the way that you can turn out evil. He also believed that the most important characteristic of our personalities is created by how we treat others.
Thoreau implies that as long as one moral person can stand up for himself, others will follow and eventually force change. Second, civil disobedience is a method of political engagement: its goal must be aimed at bringing the law into conformity with the requirements of justice. No civil state is perfect – all contracts have compromises and flaws. As a united people of a state, it must have its general will parallel to the path of justice to ensure freedom and equality. Therefore, the general will of the people requires that laws be amended to reflect morality and justice.
Source D, written by a leading sociologist, agreed that state intervention was needed, but differentiated in the way that he believed that it linked to individual liberties too, and that the individual owes the state duties as well. The author found that the State and workers should work together, and that State intervention should provide jobs and wages, but not necessarily benefits. Hobhouse’s views are supported
And here again, we see that if people listen to their conscience, and not to what society want them to believe is good, there will be some beneficial changes. In Civil disobedience, the author proved again that morality, as well as conscience plays an important role. Thoreau argued “It has been truly said, that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience." By this, he too wanted to show that individual can take actions at any time without been influenced because of their own conscience of what is good or bad. By voicing out his conscience, individual will proved his uniqueness.
All of these questions needed to be answered and the only logical way to resolve these issues was through government. The execution of government and such laws was in the best interest of the commonwealth for the public good. This is the main connection between property and the need for public government because without government who would preserve and protect these interest. Locke recognized the danger of leaving absolute power to any one individual, or group of individuals. Locke thought that the government’s power was best limited by dividing it up into branches, with each branch having only as much power as is needed for its proper function.
A man has an obligation to act according to the commands of his conscience, even if it goes against majority opinion, the reigning leadership, or the laws of society. In cases where the government supports unjust laws Thoreau's idea of service to one's country ironically takes the form of resistance against it. Resistance is the highest form of patriotism because it demonstrates a desire not to overthrow government but to build a better one in the long term. Thoreau just wants to eliminate the ideas that make it a bad government not the entire government itself. Thoreau then talks about the issue of change through democratic ways.
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