Cicero’s theory being secular in nature provides enough room for evaluation by other religions. Its value on the state as a responsible agent in war and conflict may further be developed since it is centered on justice, which comes from social discourse. Thus, the definition of justice according to Cicero may appear vague. This is where Aristotle’s theory of justice comes into play. According to Aristotle, justice differs in form depending on the situation.
In Cicero’s piece Laws, Marcus states that, “... law is prudence, the effect of which is to order person to act correctly and to forbid them to transgress.” The sources for these laws include: “what nature has granted to a human being, how many of the best things the human mind encompasses, what service we have been born for and brought into light to perform and accomplish, what is the connection among human beings, and what natural fellowship there is among them.” However, even if laws were to be implemented to enforce the ideal actions and behaviors of the members of society, humans will still deviate, regardless if there are laws to promote good and demote evil. Additionally, even though it is argued in Cicero’s piece that, “the primary fellowship of human being with god involves reason; and among those who have reason in common, correct reason is also in common. Since that is law, we should also consider human beings to be united with gods by law,” things will get in the way such as lust, money, or anything in between, unfortunately leading people away from what is considered “right” and towards what is considered “wrong”. The ideas that are considered “right” are naturally and mutually supported within a society, bringing people together and against what is considered deviant. Knowledge of intellect and philosophical intuition, not necessarily just laws, is necessary for a society to govern efficiently
In simpler terms, this argument is stating that Cicero believes that what is truly a just human nature, becomes corrupted, and therefore unjust, once applied to the changing roles of humanity and their lives in a polis. On the other hand, a reasonable counter argument can be made which would propose a similar answer, but with a variation of the ultimate reason. Although Cicero testifies that human injustice directly opposes human nature, he asserts that it is bound to happen when human beings bang together and centralize into
Without morality, law does not exist because it does not contain real justice. Real justice is following natural and moral law in how a person punishes and acts. Natural law is instilled into the hearts of men by God and provides a means of deciphering right from wrong. It can be “discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God 's special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and who God specifically indicates are to be bound.”12 Though one may not believe in divine or moral law, natural law can still be used to determine justice from injustice. Many do not understand that natural law and civil law are both branches of moral law, and when either are used, moral law is being referenced.
Cicero’s The Republic and The Laws outlines many aspects of modern government, many of which the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution meet, and some of which they fall short of! While the Preamble to both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution align with many of Cicero’s ideas, they also exclude some of his claims. For example, the Preambles to both the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution both do not emphasize God or religion, even though both these concepts were large factors in the early government of the United States. Cicero, on the other hand, states that religious conviction is a cornerstone of laws and a just society, as the Laws states, the provisions “are certainly in accordance with nature.”
Aristotle’s argument that it is the nature of the universe to be composed of virtuous elements, can be supported by his realist viewpoints. For example, Aristotle contributes the source of justice to be of geometry, which is a mathematical ruled governed by the order of the universe. Thus, the virtues that Aristotle chooses to highlight in the text can be related to matter. However, because of Socrates realist thought he relates the virtues that the universe encompasses to spirit as well. For example, Socrates states that it is the nature of the universe to encompass goodness.
If the law lacks morality, and principles that ensure justice, and fairness is it even a law at all? . Yes it may be in a book of laws, signed by congress, and enforced by superiors, but the question still remains is a law actually a law if it doesn’t ensure the best interest of all people ? . Is a unjust law one that doesn’t bind lawmakers to obey ?.
Legalism stressed the importance of law and order above all other matters. Many of the doctrines and beliefs of Legalism were formed from the ideas of Han Fei, who was actually the disciple of the Confucian philosopher Xun Zi. Xun Zi had lost faith in the Confucian belief in the inherent good of man after seeing the constant political and social turmoil of his time. He and his disciples took the realization of man’s true nature to heart and decided that there needed to be something to control the rampant self interest of man, and they decided that the way would be through a system of laws. While Confucians believe that the nature of man is inherently good, Legalists believe that the nature of man is very susceptible to bad intentions.
Herein lies the ultimate departure from Confucianism, and the reason Legalists deem such thought unforgiveable. Whereas Confucius would emphasize that the goal of the state would be the removal of litigations entirely, Legalists pursue the notion that law is necessary at all times (Chan p. 88). Fundamental opposition prevents many comparisons between the two schools, with the differences far outweighing the
He believed that justice is about combining these two values. He does so by deploying an old idea in a new way: the idea of a social contract. The original position is a central feature of Rawls’s social contract account of justice. It is a hypothetical contract. According to Rawls, justice demands impartiality.