Essay On Natural Law Theory

A ‘law of nature’ is a general rule that is discovered through reason. This law supports the claim for human self-preservation and condemns destruction of humanity. It does not need to be written down because it is natural and made known to all by mental faculty, reason or philosophy. In Leviathan, Hobbes presents, what he thinks, are the three most important laws of nature. He sees them as important because he believes that, these laws will create a state of peace, in a state where humans are constantly at war against each other.

Just and unjust laws are created to “better the world” when in reality some people are hurt in the process, which is why individuals agree with Dr. King’s assertions. The significance of just laws is that they are fair to everyone and people based on their gender, race, ethnicity or color are not discriminated. The text states, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God”(King, paragraph sixteen). What this quote is trying to say is that if a law creates peace and equality, then it means that it is just. A law is considered fair if it applies to everyone no matter their skin color or gender.

However, the one law that is specific to man and that man is free to disobey or get “mistaken”, is the “Law of Nature or decent behavior” (Lewis). C.S. Lewis uses inductive reasoning to form this kind of logic by first making the observation that even though throughout time man has seemed to have had different agreements of what they believe to be moral,

Reading this text, it is easy to differentiate between them. Martin Luther King says that a just law connects back to the moral law of the law of God. He said that an unjust law is one that is not at all in balance with the moral law. A just law in his words is one that lifts an individual up instead of degrading them. In other words, Martin Luther King Jr. strongly believes that the citizen has a legal and moral responsibility to obey laws that are just, as well as the moral responsibility to disobey laws that are unjust.

A philosopher Stuart Rachels suggests that, “ morality is the set of rules governing behavior that rational people accept, on the condition that others accept them too”. For me this have a meaning that if we follow those guidelines we are being morally good, we can live morally by our own choice and if not probably we will have consequences and not just because a divine superior requires us live in morality. Even though I am a strong believer in God not all people is, therefore the social contract will apply for all

- Detail the distinction between just and unjust laws. Why is it important Dr. King make this distinction? - One has a legal and moral responsibility to obey “just” laws because they are a “ man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.” Any “just” law uplifts human personality. One has a moral responsibility to disobey “unjust” laws because they are “ a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” Any “unjust” law degrades human

Practical thinking is necessary because in order to follow orders a citizen must question the morality of the laws. Therefore, Eichmann performed his duties without questioning the morality of them but believing them to be moral. Though this did not make him a monster, instead it made him a citizen who possessed the "vices of blind obedience" (Arendt, 135). His crimes

This making it less likely for a ruler to abuse their power or corrupt the government. His philosophy around government is that “God gave people reason to know their nature rights and to create a government that protects these rights.” If people have the right to life, liberty, and property and has a say in it it leads to less corruption. If at any point the government isn’t meeting the required standards it can be overthrown. Nevertheless, Locke’s idea of government is more relatable to the people which why it should be

Locke’s foundation for all his assertions on liberty is “that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should be also equal” (Locke 8). With this comes “natural liberty” which Locke defines as “to be free from any superior power on earth,…to have only the law of nature for his rule” (Locke 17). The state of nature is something that all men are born into, but must leave to gain both stability and law because in the state of nature, as Locke write above, nature is the only force that rules man. Once one leaves the state of nature a shift is seen; now, “the liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but, that established, by consent” (Locke 17). Locke equates the “law of Nature” as being related to the “law of God” and it is here where Locke’s argument can be seen as divinely ordained, in the same way Louis XIV’s rule was vested in God’s power (Locke 7).

Basically, this positon is that morality should be defined strictly by logic, facts, intuition, and empathy. This is basically the opposite of religion, which derives everything from a supernatural figure or figures. Rushdie says to rely on intuition and logic but Didion is quite the opposite. Didion believes that everything we rely on is created by those around us and is therefore

It isnt right for somebody that has done something bad and then they dont get in trouble. But that is what i think about the laws because if somebody has laws you need to respect the laws but that is how i feel about hammburai code is fait to