“That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Jefferson 120). This man believed the same as hobbes, that there needed to be something to control and regulate what was needed for a population to live
The obligation to obey the law is foundational to any functional society. Whether morality ever permits us to disobey the law remains a contentious debate. Some argue that morality may require us to defy unjust laws, prompting us to examine when we must obey the law and when we are justified in disregarding it. As Martin Luther King Jr. once stated, "One has not only a legal and moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws."
First of all, I side with the views of King. If you feel that something is unjust, and you aren’t harming anyone why must you follow it? You have a responsibility to all of society to challenge what you feel is wrong. I agree with King when he says “The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws.
Hobbes believed that man must escape their state of nature to be protected. Within this social contract the ruler had absolute power over the people which lead to their words and opinions never being heard. Hobbes believed that for the government to function properly, the people must obey the absolute monarchy and accept that their opinions are not being accounted. Hobbes explained, “And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude; not tranferre their Person from him that beareth it…” (Hobbes in Perry, 22).
Hobbes believed that without a strong government, people experience continual fear and danger of violent death and lives that are solitary, poor, brutish, and short.” This quote is important because many people who are not ruled usually lead to destruction and mayhem. According to hobbes “appointing a diverse group of representatives to present the problems of the common people to the leviathan. These representatives would only have the power to present opinions, since all final decisions would be made by the leviathan.” i imagine that hobbes presumes that the citizens will take advantage of anyone who is seen as a “good” person, this idea can provide the people with a voice and still be able to make the right
There is no government, no authority whatsoever. Every being is born equal and share the right to do anything for their survival. His political theory was based off his idea that all humans are naturally evil and selfish. Hobbes said that this equality leads to war. “...a war of every man against every man.”
King quotes St. Augustine is his letter saying,” an unjust law is no law at all.” And in such case of an unjust law, it is the publics duty to openly and lovingly break the law. By breaking an unjust law, King
Hobbes believed if there was no government every man will fight against one another for power. To stop the fighting the people form a government to make peace. “To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust” (doc 2). This quote is saying that without laws or any form of government people will fight each other. And
Society and government require people to be obedient towards authority, but is it always the best thing to do? During the aftermath of World War II many of the major leaders of the Nazi regime were put on trial for crimes against humanity (History.com). These trials were known as the Nuremburg war trials, were most of the convicted proclaimed that they were “just following orders” (McLeod 584). Being an accomplice to a crime is also against the law. In the Nuremburg trials, those accused were not breaking the law that their government had created, they were actually following it.
Is it better to follow laws that are unjust but right, or do the thing that is fair but are against the law? Socrates in Plato’s “The Crito” and Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” answer this question from conflicting perspectives. According to Plato (427-423 BCE), Socrates believed that it is his duty to obey the law of his city, Athens, on all occasions, whereas King (1963) made the argument first put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas that “an unjust law is no law at all” (p. 69). One of these reasons for the differing opinions on this subject is due to the times and places in which these two men existed and came to their views on Civil disobedience.
Hobbes believed that natural state of humans was violent and therefore needed order and control to ensure a just and equal society (Robinson 2016, 4). However Hobbes believed that a sovereign could maintain power without deceit and manipulation. Hobbes believed in the social contract which is when people could have a moral understanding about right and wrong to avoid the chaotic violent human nature. Hobbes believed in the idea of utilitarianism which would “maximize the most good and minimize the pain” (Robinson 201, 4). This would ensure that the sovereign was doing things for the right reasons and not to better himself but to better society as a
According to Hobbes, a sovereign, whether the sovereign was placed into power by violence or force, is the only way to secure law and order. For him, if a citizen obeys the sovereign for fear of punishment or in the fear of the state of nature, it is the choice of the citizen. According to Hobbes, this is not tyranny; it is his idea of a society that is successful, one that does not have room for democracy. As a realist, Hobbes has a fierce distrust of democracy and viewed all of mankind in a restless desire for power. If the people are given power, law and order would crumble in Hobbes’ eyes.
One reason is if you obey an unjust law, then you are unjust yourself. This is invalid given that disobeying any law makes you unjust. Also, Socrates explains to Crito that what the majority thinks “cannot make a man either wise or foolish, but they inflict things haphazardly” (Crito 47). What the majority thinks is not always the right thing. People are influenced by others who disobey the law which can eventually lead up to anarchy, so why would you want to disobey a law?
Firstly, an absolute monarchy as proposed by Hobbes would require that people relinquish their own rights and to submit to one absolute power, which Locke feels is counterintuitive his understand of humans in the state of nature. A distinctive feature of Locke’s state of nature is perfect freedom for people to carry out their own wills without hindrance. Hence, Locke’s main critique of Hobbes’ absolutism is that people living under a Hobbesian
For Hobbes, dividing capacities to judge between different bodies is tantamount to letting the state of nature straight back in. " For what is it to divide the power of a commonwealth, but to dissolve it; for powers divided mutually destroy each other." (Leviathan, xxix.12; cf De Cive, xii.5) Beyond the example of England in the 1640s, Hobbes hardly bothers to argue the point, although it is crucial to his entire theory. Always in his mind is the Civil War that arose when Parliament claimed the right to judge rules of taxation, and thereby prevented the King from ruling and making war as he saw fit, and when churches and religious sects claimed prerogatives that went against the King's
