Human nature may refer to many different aspects, and a few of these aspects are the behavioural traits of humankind, the purpose of human life and the importance of soul. Lotario was cynical about human nature while Pico, on the other hand, was more appreciative. Thus, both had different views on human nature. This essay will distinguish the similarities and dissimilarities of Lotario’s and Pico’s views on human nature. Thereafter, an evaluation will be made as to who has a better understanding of the nature of human.
Roscoe Pound said that interests are both individual and social and that conflicts are only resolved through considering them on the same level. Individual against individual and society against society and therefore failure to do this is bias towards society. He also believed in consensus view of society believing that interests should be balanced in line with society’s values. There are many theories to whether conflicting interests are balanced but we must look at parliament to see what they do to tackle this problem. Parliament does manage to balance conflicting interests in the process of making an act.
It is also a means to find equality among the different members of society. In criticism of Realism, Artifactualism states the Realists are too individualistic of their analyses of law and are too sensitive in regards to the constitutive law. In regards to the multiple theories discussed in part III of the article entitled “Mapping Legal Theory” by Richard F. Devlin from the Alberta Law Review, I believe the Marxist theory holds the same semblance to Artifactualism in terms of its interpretation of law. Marxist’s hold a belief that society revolves around the production of goods and the quality of society is determined by the how the relations are between the two classes within the production system. These two classes are the proletariats, who are
Government has its origins in the evil of man and is therefore a necessary evil at best.” He goes on to say that “government's sole purpose is to protect life, liberty and property, and that a government should be judged solely on the basis of the extent to which it accomplishes this goal.” Basically, Paine is stating to the common people that they have the opportunity to form their own representation of government and do it in a way that truly represents their wants and needs. He is also knocking the form of government the British have and elaborating on why they need to separate due to their own needs for America. Paine would later go into more depth of the style of government Great Britain rules with. The second and perhaps most important key point Paine was trying to explain was the Monarchy rule
Thoreau Encouraged Individualism and Lived by His Own Advice Thoreau presents the idea of individualism in his essays “Civil Disobedience” and “Where I Lived and What I Lived For”. He presents the idea that as individuals we cannot allow the government or the rest of society direct and determine how our lives are lived. He also discusses avoiding minor trivial details and superficial ideas that complicate our lives. Thoreau’s essays allow us to reflect on our own life, to see how truly individual we are and how components of our life affect us and our way of living. Thoreau accuses society for being responsible for consuming the identity of people by preoccupying them with small details and of life, such as the government unjustly using people because they do not know anything different than to obey and conform.
Phil 103 Essay What two principles of justice does Rawls believe would be chosen in the original position (when deciding the issue of distributive justice within states)? Are these good choices? Critically discuss with reference to Rawls’ own reasoning for the two principles. Rawls believes that the two principles of justice that would be chosen in the original position are: The Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle and The Difference Principle. In the original position, there is ‘The Veil of ignorance’ where individual factors about who someone is within society are not known.
“Analyze Beccaria’s argument against the judicial torture within the framework of Enlightnment values, and explain if you find his position still relevant today.” Cesare Beccaria, an enlightenment era philosopher that argued against the many problems that were wrong with the judicial system. He argued against the judicial torture by using the enlightenment ideas, since torture it was a big concern in his time and that it was lacking fairness and usefulness. Beccaria’s fundamental faith that he truly believed in was that all human beings are rational creatures that can join each other in peace and harmony in order to achieve a mutual benefit. Since the enlightenment ideals consisted of a social contract that all made political authority a legitimate authority because of the individuals within the society who joined together for a mutual benefit. Meaning that the authority that was elected by the society had to be beneficial to the society; as well as the right and wrong actions depended on the effect that these actions had on the unhappiness and happiness of an individual.
Thoreau wrote the Essay on Civil Disobedience, in which he addressed the question, “when do larger moral imperatives justify violating a law supported by the majority”. His response was that when a law “… is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law’’. This follows from basic English Common Law, in which you can do something as long as it doesn’t hurt someone else. Thoreau’s philosophy is that you disobey a command (law) when it is hurting someone else. Another area of his thinking is that government is symbolic of a ‘machine’, and man should commit non-violent disobedience to ‘gain access to the machine’.
Although democratic practices were on the way in the capitalist countries, he asserted that democratic politics possessed no advancement. Their destinations are totally different. Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience was the first great declaration of the right and duty to commit civil disobedience, which intended to set the demands of conscience above the demands of the law and the ruling authorities, to keep human’s moral obligation which was to resist evil, to make the democracy and justice come true. Nietzsche, on the other side, aimed to rebuild the deposed hierarchy system of the society, to realize elite politics that only a small group of people manage the society. From this perspective, their reasons for nonviolence are also divergent for their
He cites the existence of unjust laws and declares that we as citizens should not be obligated to follow them. The basis for this argument is that the government is run by a majority with the most power, not the most valid perspective. This is the reason why Thoreau advises citizens to follow what they believe to be right and not embrace what the government says. Thoreau states that is not a man’s duty to pledge to eradicate all wrongs from his country but that it is one’s duty to “wash his hands” of it and to not support the wrong in anyway (page 183 para13). He continues to tell a story of how he used this method to protest the Mexican American War which was being waged at the time the essay was written.