This punishment is decided by the sovereign in all cases. The key difference in the nature of this violence is however different. Machiavelli believes the sovereign should adapt violence to keep his position and maintain a stable relation with his subjects. Hobbes’ approach differs from this because violence used by the sovereign in his opinion benefits his people the most. This is because the sovereign has no problem keeping his position, the usage of violence will only be adopted to maintain the peace and security of the people under the contract.
In order for a law to be valid it must uphold and support these basic goods, in order to help create a common good for the population. Since the law “you will not stand on the blood of your neighbor” protects an individuals right to life, which is the first basic good on Finnis’s list, this law is a valid law. In addition this law is valid because it also fulfills the basic good of practical reason, through the emphasis it places on watching out for other people thus fostering common good for society. Instead of focusing on the principles underlying the content or the goal of the law, Fuller chooses to explain a law’s validity based on procedural principals. According to Fuller, a law is only valid if it is enacted using the eight universal procedural principles, such as clarity and publication of the law .
Strawson follows this explanation of the argument by stating that we are what we are, and no punishment or reward is "fitting" for us. He then goes on to expand on the consequences of the Basic Argument. He announces that the result of this is "that there is a fundamental sense in which no punishment or reward is ever ultimately just"(221). This would mean it is just as fair to punish or reward people for their actions as it is the color of their hair or face
According to him, “a great man” would be the one, who in a large crowd, keeps his opinion and shows tenacity. The statement has a great moral- don’t follow the flock of sheep; it is true in many cases, and I agree with Emerson on this. However, another point Emerson tries to make is that a person should be himself. If his nature is similar to that of Narcissus, he/she should not try to change it, because that is what he/she is. The nature of a person, is the “centre of all things” (Emerson).
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
REAL-POLITIK: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS “Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone.” “For where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, of glory or of shame, should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be; what course will save the life and liberty of the country?” Machiavelli emphasized that being a good politician doesn’t always necessarily equate to being a good person. However, Machiavelli never praised immorality. He was not nihilistic, and he did not suppose that there was no value in this world. He did not wish to create a world where all values would be destroyed.
This sometimes leads to deviant behavior, it being viewed as a way to assert one’s freedom, and such forms of rebellion are often dissected in clinical studies of psychological behavior. As perennial as the challenge to rule-keeping and following external orders may be, it remains clear that deviating from them as a stab at self-determination produces little more than a false sense of true freedom, the final result being that, rather than external rules or regulations frustrating his hopes and dreams, the rebel himself becomes the biggest barrier to progress. While most agree that deviant behavior usually makes a bad situation worse, others contend that the removal of external or social barriers and rules can endow one with freedom to pursue what one wants, that the “freedom from” increases your “freedom to” and that the lifting of barriers makes achievement more likely. Erich Fromm(1941) and Charles Taylor (1985) shed some light on the subject. In Fromm’s Escape from Freedom and Taylor’s What’s Wrong with Negative Liberty, the two authors, perhaps taking a cue from Kant (1998), divide freedom into a binary framework, namely negative and positive freedom.
Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. I know that doing this is surely more difficult than simple talking. But there are ways to stop Human Trafficking, like Obama said “The change we seek will not come easy, but we can draw strength from the movements of the past. For we know that every life saved — in the words of that great Proclamation — is 'an act of justice'; worthy of 'the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favour of Almighty God.” Together WE CAN make a place where the world is purer and the angels are cleaner, a place where humans finally have freedom. Everyone here in this room, in this world have the power to do so.
Kainz points out that the passages in Aristotle commonly used to indicate support of natural law, come from the Rhetoric "Universal law is the law of nature. For there really is, as everyone to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other" These are embedded in a section giving advice to lawyers on how to argue cases. But though Aristotle may not be as clearly a natural lawyer as some have thought, he does bequeath three important ideas that get taken up by natural law later on. First Aristotle speaks at length concerning teleology and the notion that all natural objects have an end they are internally driven to fulfil and that to understand a thing we must understand the end toward which it aims. Second, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle applies this principle to discover the end of human beings, arguing that humans, as natural, aim at some specific highest good for humans, which he defines as happiness—virtuous, rational, satisfactory activity (1097a15–1098a15).
If violence will impeded the man in fulfilling his purpose, then violence is contrary to natural law. Since peace assists this fulfillment, man should honour promises, since to dishonour a promise can lead to disharmony or even violence. This should be the constant value that is embodied within the principle of natural law. It is a characteristic of natural law that the truths it embodies are not made known to man by some Great Architect beyond the skies. We do not find the heavens open and a hand comes through clouds, passing down to mankind a tablet of stone on which the truths of natural law are inscribed: the truth of natural law are not revealed truths.