| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "HOBBES HART LAW": |
|
|
Hobbes and Hart on Law, 2002.
Shows the interpretation of two philosophers on the subject of law, Thomas Hobbes (in "Leviathan") and English legal philosopher, H.L.A Hart.
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 1 source, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In "Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes presents an understanding of the law as a concept that distances human beings from their natures, thus saving the integrity of civilization. Hobbes envisions the human being as naturally flawed and brutish and it is only the development of law and the strict adherence to these principles that a healthy civilization can exist. Hobbes argues, moreover, that situational legislation would be the decline of the integrity of a civilization. English legal philosopher H.L.A. Hart disagrees with Hobbes on this point. Hart argues for the privacy of one's personal conduct and states that if it does not infringe upon the rights of others, it should not be subject to public legislation. Hart relies strongly on the notion of "internal perspective" as a concept, which establishes the parameters of obligation for a legal system.
| |
|
H.L.A. Hart: The Separation of Law and Morality., 2002.
A look at Hart's view on the separation of law and morality.
2,400 words (approx. 9.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This ten-page undergraduate paper examines whether Hart's view of a legal system provides an adequate account of the authority of law or fidelity to law. The author provides an exposition of this criticism, then examines Hart's response to such criticism.
| |
|
Hobbes versus Machiavelli, 2005.
This paper discusses justice and political reality, through examining the philosophies of Hobbes versus Machiavelli.
2,250 words (approx. 9.0 pages), 2 sources, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this article, the writer notes that the 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented in his Leviathan a theory of justice and political order based on reason. The writer then points out that in the course of his argument, Hobbes creates the figure of the Fool who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. The writer discusses that while Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes' attributes to this Fool, resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli.
From the Paper
"The 17th century British political philosopher Thomas Hobbes presented, in his Leviathan, a theory of justice and political order based on reason. In the course of his argument Hobbes creates the figure of the "Fool" who contradicts Hobbes' theory of justice and social order and advocates in its place a view of society based upon the selfish pursuit of individual advantage. While Hobbes' Fool is a rhetorical device designed to better allow Hobbes to present his arguments, many of the views Hobbes attributes to this Fool resemble those of the Renaissance Italian political philosopher Machiavelli."
| |
|
?Leviathan? by Thomas Hobbes, 2006.
A review of Thomas Hobbes innovative "Leviathan".
3,037 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 89.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In this review of Thomas Hobbes" Leviathan", the author describes the book as innovative and a great philosophical work. He describes how Hobbes argues that mankind, in order to live peacefully, ought to submit to the power of an ultimate, sovereign authority. This power would be unlimited and total, the very definition of a tyrannical state. The author tells us that Hobbes states only a "leviathan" can govern man. The author points out how Hobbes argues that without such extreme control to oversee the lives and interactions of men, every society would slowly disassemble and capitulate into a civil war. In conclusion the author discusses Hobbes argument that government is a necessary component in the building of peace and security within civilized groups. He believes that because man is so violent in his "natural" condition, any sovereign that governs man is seen as an overbearing taskmaster.
From the Paper
"The catch lies in the fact that each individual has his own judgment regarding self-preservation. A man, for his own reasons, may decide that the death of another man is a matter of self-preservation. In practical terms, the right to survive can easily become an unrestricted right to an anti-social behavior. (Hobbes calls it the right "to all things.") He not only assumes that man has the impulse to survive, but that man should, as a matter of "practical rationality," adopt behaviors that are necessary for self-preservation. Hence, if man judges another man to be a threat, and judges that killing that man is the only way to eliminate the threat, then by the logic self-preservation, he has a right to commit murder. The problem here is as Williams points out, that "in the state of nature no one is in a position to successfully define what is good judgment."
| |
|
Moral Rules and Hobbes' s "Leviathan", 2002.
An overview of Hobbes's social philosophy and views of morality on Western society.
900 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 1 source, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will show how Hobbes's view of the function and use of morality in Western society was a more complex one than a initial reading of his work would suggest. The moral rules which govern the social order re-visioned by Hobbes come in the form of what Hobbes termed "natural laws" which determine all human behaviour. However, any analysis of these first necessitates an analysis of Hobbes's social philosophy in general. .
| |
|
Locke And Hobbes On Property - A Natural Right?, 2002.
This paper discusses property as discussed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 5 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
It focuses mainly on the latter's views, but uses Hobbes as a point of comparison. In his "Two Treatises of Government" (1690), Locke sets forth a view that the state exists to preserve national rights of citizens. This was significant in his views on property, as we will see. Property is inherently the joining of the earth - which is common to all men - and the application of one's body - or his/her labor. The fruit of that union is considered property by Locke, who goes onto argue that property was, therefore, a natural right. Hobbes, on the other hand, argued that property was the effect of the commonwealth, which exists only through civil laws given by the sovereign. This essay will argue that Locke's account of the methods of and limits of property acquisition in the state of nature differ from those of Hobbes. Locke argued that property was a natural right; Hobbes did not.
| |
|
Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper describes and compares the political philosophies of Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes.
3,765 words (approx. 15.1 pages), 15 sources, MLA, $ 103.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that Machiavelli lived during the Renaissance, nearly 150 years earlier than Thomas Hobbes, yet it was he who envisioned the basis for the political pragmatism of the twentieth century; while Thomas Hobbes, who lived in the 16th century, was a political materialist in the classical tradition of Plato and Galileo. The author stresses that Machiavellianism, as a term, has been used to describe the principles of power politics and the type of person who uses those principles in political or personal life is frequently described as a Machiavellian. The paper includes a comparison of the Table of Contents of "De Cive" by Thomas Hobbes and of "The Prince" by Machiavelli to demonstrate that Hobbes is looking for a universal law of politic; whereas, Machiavelli is looking for a practical means of surviving real politics. Several very long quotes.
From the Paper
"For Machiavelli, historical change has two forms: (1) the motion of nature and, (2) the order or ordering that man intends. Nature's changes are unreliable; they can be good or bad, but man does not feel safe or grateful. Machiavelli lumps unreliable nature with fickle fortune as the first element of his view of the opposing forces of history. Human order, or as Machiavelli describes it, "orders and modes" (Preface), is devised by human virtu to overcome this sense of being at the mercy of nature or fortune and is the second element of the equation. Simply put, his context of history is a contest between virtu and fortuna. Machiavelli is not a mere observer of this contest. As a humanist historian, he bases his advice, or lessons if you will, on the contest. But unlike the other historians of his day, he does not teach the lesson by what was done, but rather by what should have been done. This clearly places Histories in the political instead of historical genre by modern standards."
| |
|
Hobbes and American Politics, 2002.
A comparison between Thomas Hobbes' ideas of a utopian society and America?s political system today.
1,058 words (approx. 4.2 pages), 1 source, MLA, $ 37.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the ideals of the philosopher Thomas Hobbes from his "Leviathan" written in 1651 in and how his philosophy compares to today's political system. It discusses how Hobbes was a moral pragmatist or utilitarian and how an absolutist government, with executive, legislative and judicial powers in the scepter of one sovereign is Hobbes? idea of keeping the peace. This paper looks at what his reaction may have been today of America's society and political system with increasing crime rate statistics and how he would have viewed America's foreign policy and the Cold War in light of his beliefs. Hobbes would likely have seen today's America as a failed experiment, falling into the spiral of anarchy and mob rule.
From the Paper
"Thomas Hobbes? Leviathan was written in 1651, at a time of civil war in England. The whole of Europe had been ravaged by the Thirty Years? War not long before. When a philosopher flees his homeland seeking the peace of a foreign country because he cannot stay safely, surely his thoughts turn to the barbarous tendencies of man. Hobbes originally planned on a career focused in three different areas of philosophy: the physical body, human nature and society. He tutored across the continent, met and shared ideas with the likes of Descartes and Galileo, Mersenne and Gassendi. But when war broke out, publishing his views on society and utopia became more urgent, and his career plan got out of order. We can understand his philosophy by his writing, but that can only represent his reaction to his world."
| |
|
Hobbes, the Legal Positivist, 2002.
Examines Thomas Hobbes's opinion on the laws of nature as seen in his work, "Leviathan".
1,150 words (approx. 4.6 pages), 2 sources, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Thomas Hobbes, in his "Leviathan", clearly defines himself as a "positivist lawyer" as opposed to one who is an advocate of natural law. This being said, in Chapter 26 of "Leviathan", Hobbes appears to combine the two concepts of law, declaring that "the Law of Nature and the Civil Law, contain each other, and are of equal extent" (26). However, as this essay will argue, Hobbes does not mean by this that the sovereign cannot enact laws that contradict the laws of nature. Rather, as will be seen, Hobbes here indicates the considerable overlapping of the two forms of law - although he is clear that "natural law" is not technically law - with the understanding that the sovereign may enact civil law that interprets or abridges the laws of nature, although such sovereign laws are not always "right".
| |
|
Political Thinkers: Hobbes and Machiavelli, 2002.
Examines how both Hobbes and Machiavelli conceived of, defined and justified power / authority over a community.
1,650 words (approx. 6.6 pages), 3 sources, $ 62.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Many medieval political thinkers observed that power and authority came first from God and then from a social mandate. In "Leviathan", Thomas Hobbes proposes that power comes from the social mandate first. He makes this assertion on the basis that it is within the human nature to secure its life through banding together with others to form a community. Each community, then, is held together by a common desire for protection from the wild while maintaining isolation of the self from others. One person, and in Hobbes' view it really doesn't matter who, must be able to make decisions on behalf of the community, that person, even if he/she does not enjoy unanimous support, becomes the sovereign. Hobbes' concept of authority and power, then, stems from the belief that people have leaders because such people are necessary to maintain the unification of society and thus maintain the protection of the people from the wild. Niccolo Machiavelli had a slightly different idea as to the justification and origin of power and authority. Machiavelli concurs with Hobbes that a sovereign is necessary for the unification of the society. But, rather than being the arbitrary selection of a society, the Machiavellian sovereign is, by necessity, a member of an established and influential family, a man with long blood-lines to other rulers who, by nature of his heredity, has less cause to offend others and thus rules effectively through his urbane nature.
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes, 2002.
The life and work of Thomas Hobbes.
2,900 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 8 sources, $ 106.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the life and work of Thomas Hobbes who was born in 1588. Hobbes studied different forms of governments and during his time outside of England he became interested in why people allowed themselves to be ruled and what would be the best form of government for England. In 1651, Hobbes wrote his most famous work, entitled "Leviathan." In it, he argued that people were naturally wicked and could not be trusted to govern. Therefore, Hobbes believed that an absolute monarchy - a government that gave all power to a king or queen - was best.
| |
|
Hobbes and Locke, 2002.
A comparative analysis of Thomas Hobbes? and John Locke?s political theories.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper compares and contrasts the political beliefs of the two philosophers and theorists Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. It looks at how Hobbes' political theory is illustrated in the Leviathan which discusses the matter, form and power of a commonwealth. Hobbes was a social contract theorist who believed that a commonwealth was "but an artificial man?. It shows how Locke was also a social contract theorist who believed that the purpose of government was to protect the lives of subjects.
Outline
Hobbes
Locke
The Most Fundamental Differences
Weaknesses and Strengths
From the Paper
"Though both of these philosophers are social contract theorist there are some small differences in their ideals. Hobbes believed that once subjects gave consent to be governed they must abide by the laws set forth by that sovereign. He believed that subjects should be certain that the sovereign is going to do everything in his power to preserve their lives before they transfer their rights and wills to him. Once the rights and wills of the subjects are tranfered the sovereign becomes the voice of the commonwealth and his authority must be respected--the sovereign was the supreme power."
| |
|
Hobbes, Machiavelli and Political Failure, 2008.
An analysis of the causes and consequences of political failure in Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Thomas Hobbes's "The Leviathan".
3,468 words (approx. 13.9 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 97.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) can be assessed as theorists influenced by direct exposure to political failure and its resulting chaos. It looks as how Machiavelli suggested that the prince was a person who knew he could not have something for nothing, whereas Hobbes was inclined to place the citizen in similar shoes, needing to adjust to a directed social order aware that without small compromises, he would lose the order so needed and wanted to achieve his ambitions. The paper concludes that in the early 21st century, there is much in international political life to remind us of Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Hobbes' "The Leviathan" in different demonstrations of both leadership and political failure and how war, anarchy, alienation and social chaos do seem the prices of poor leadership approaches and the failure to provide what is needed.
Outline:
Introduction
Machiavelli on Political Failure
Hobbes on Political Failure
Lessons of being a Bad Leader, or a Bad Subject
Concluding Remarks
From the Paper
"Both Machiavelli and Hobbes had few illusions about human nature and the difficulties of governance. Machiavelli saw political failure as owing directly to the nature of the leader and whether or not he was a prince, in a person astute and evolved enough to wield power, and as Hobbes agreed in places but also expected subjects to understand that beyond a symbolic leader they needed to see their own culpability when political systems fell to pieces, that they were merely parts of the same organic social machine. Political failure meant that one party of another was not complying as necessary to make the machine function and that this should be recognized. In other words, whatever kind of leader or ruler was produced, human unwillingness to put cooperation ahead of competition and greed, or a failure to respect the law towards other anarchy would bring political failure's result in the anarchy of which human beings were also much afraid. "
| |
|
Hobbes and Locke, 2004.
This essay contrasts the ideologies of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, concentrating on the constitutive value in their writings.
1,995 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 63.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although both philosophers share similar views, Hobbes and Locke have very different observations regarding laws and rights. It gives the following examples: the natural law, the social contract, and most importantly, fundamental law. The author points out that Hobbes takes the absolutist viewpoint supporting an absolute sovereign, while Locke supports a more democratic approach against an absolute sovereign. The paper concludes that both Hobbes and Locke shared vital theories that assisted in the creation of the United States Constitution.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The Constitutionalist
The Absolutist
In Conclusion
From the Paper
"From this, we get Locke?s next section in the Second Treatise, which is on the state of war, which occurs within the state of nature. Locke tells us that the state of war is a ?state of Enmity and Destruction? where ?a sedate settled design is put upon another Mans Life.? In this case, there is a conscious design to end someone?s life, which can be linked to rights within the state of nature. The state of war is entered when a threat of life is made where the design of war has been instituted. The state of war can also be achieved when the freedom of a person is tampered with, as Locke states, ?for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power.?"
| |
|
Thomas Hobbes, 2005.
This paper discusses the theories and views of Thomas Hobbes and implies that he was an authoritarian political theorist.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines the work of Thomas Hobbes and suggests that he was an authoritarian political theorist. In particular, the paper examines Hobbes' attitudes vis-a-vis the sweeping powers of a sovereign ruler and his attitudes towards religious toleration. The writer argues that, on both counts, Hobbes' political theory leans towards an authoritarian approach at odds with twenty-first century sensibilities.
From the Paper
"It is only fair to suggest that, of all the great Western philosophers of the last four hundred years, Thomas Hobbes is inescapably the least-loved. Much of this, it can be argued, is his own doing. In a modern age that values the primacy of the individual and trumpets the virtues of small government, Hobbes' authoritarian leanings and his belief that the individual must be subjugated to the sovereign power of the state are views understandably ill-received. This paper examines how Hobbes' philosophy practically encourages a zealous monarch to conflate the state's interests with his own personal and selfish ones; moreover, this paper also examines Hobbes' political theories - at least as they are delineated in the Leviathan."
|
|
|
