While Confucius would emphasize the good of the old sage-kings, Han Feizi emphasized that it was not virtue that allowed any sage-king (which the Legalists hardly believed in to begin with) but rather a combination of “timeliness of seasons, the hearts of the people, skills and talents, and position of power” (Chan p. 254). Without these attributes, no amount of virtue can resolve disorder. Legalists, rather than focus on resolving disorder with virtue and filial piety, would therefore look at a leader’s ability to enact law and enforce statecraft. Han Feizi writes “if the ruler has no statecraft, he will be ruined . .
In a lecture about ‘The Burkean Outlook’ at Yale, Dr. Ian Shapiro states that Edmund Burke was anti-enlightenment. This lecture was based on Burkes’s book called ‘The Reflections of the French Revolution’. This text provides a deep insight into the political philosophy Burke believed in and can help us to make analysis about Burke’s point character. This outlook, as the professor describes, is based on extreme distrust of not only science, but anybody who claims to have scientific knowledge. Edmund Burke was many things, but he was not Enlightened.
Men make laws to instill order in a society and prevent chaos in any shape or form. Naturally, laws will always be somewhat unjust because it is impossible to consistently construct laws that directly and equally benefit all members of a society. There will always be a majority that makes the laws and a minority that has to obey the laws. Although laws are usually the standard of morality by which we live by, they must be disobeyed in certain situations. These situations are, but not limited to, an undemocratic formation of aforementioned laws, laws that are inherently unjust according to human law which can be synonymous with God’s law.
The Founding Fathers and the public felt that the constitution didn’t set up enough boundaries for the government, they felt that the government would assume too much power and take away the “Natural Rights” of the human. The Bill of Rights was set up to make sure the public felt safe and to make sure the government couldn’t abuse their power and turn it into a communist state or a dictatorship. America and our Founding Fathers based our Bill of Rights off the English Bill of Rights, so naturally there will be a lot of similarities between the two. Much like the Amendments in the English Bill of Rights, which states: “The crown shall not have no interference with the law” and “The Freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself” Our First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
I. Sorel 's Radical Project Sorel was one of the most prominent figures of the French early 20th century Marxism, but he was radically opposed to the tradition of parliamentary socialism. Indeed, this disdain for parliamentarism is what he and Benjamin definitely share. In his most remarkable work, Reflections on Violence, Sorel fiercely attacks such figures as Jean Jaurès and other members of the French parliament. He views parliamentary socialism as a clear betrayal of the genuine Marxist principles, that is, of the commitment to the task of overthrowing capitalist state and economical system, instead of reforming it. Sorel 's Reflections on Violence is not a mere intellectual endeavor; rather, it is a revolutionary guideline.
It's anything but difficult to see that the establishments of cutting edge human advancement were not based on a rationality of good relativism. The very demonstration of passing a law and authorizing it recommends a settled standard that everybody is required to cling to. The explanations behind this are self-evident: if everybody in a general public truly, genuinely went about just as good and bad were absolutely matters of sentiment, then society would implode into a clash of "might makes appropriate." In an ethically relativistic culture, the main all inclusive motivation to do (or not do) anything is to maintain a strategic distance from the results from one's companions. Every single human law include some ethical rule being upheld by risk of results.
Moreover, our 'actions' might also lack our 'doing something' since they are just results of conditions and events (Solomon, 2002). However, to reject the very premise of the theory would mean accepting the idea that life is just a string of unrelated events. Per contra to determinism, one can support the indeterminist theory. Here we find the complete rejection of determinism, highlighting the fact that not every event has a cause. A point of contention between the two is the denial of "the freedom that we all directly experience when we choose"
The state of nature creates a paradox where people move from complete liberation to an wholly sovereign submission. Justice has no place in the state of nature where people are led or ruled by fear to obey. Modern philosophers command their citizens to give up their freedoms and right of liberty, which is an inalienable natural right, to the collective
Furthermore, would creating one authoritarian organisation enable democracy or rather destroy it? Would reducing the political actors be a democratization practice after all? We can see where the argument of not desirability enters along with non-feasibility. Last but not least as Archibugi (1998) reasons in the book ‘Re-Imagining Political Community: Studies In Cosmopolitan Democracy’ “there is no actual guarantee that the greater coordination in world politics will be informed by the values of
held that since the validation of the Prime Minister’s election was not applying any law, therefore it offended the Rule of Law . According to Mathew, J. Clause (4) of Article 329-A offended the Rule of Law which postulates the pervasiveness of the spirirt of law throughout the whole range of government in the sense of excluding arbitrary official action in any sphere . Referring to the same constitutional provision, Beg, J. observed that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to try a case on merits cannot be taken away without injury to the basic postulates of the Rule of Law and of Justice within a politically democratic constitutional structure. A study of keshavnand, Indira Gandhi, and other habeas corpus cases, “provides a distillation of judicial thought on the conception of the Rule of Law, which has evolved well over a quarter century.