PDA

View Full Version : Hobbes's Concept of Natural Law



Stefan
05-05-2013, 04:34 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wikiH/Natural_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law)




The first Law of nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war.
The second Law of nature is that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth, as for peace, and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.
The third Law is that men perform their covenants made. In this law of nature consisteth the fountain and original of justice... when a covenant is made, then to break it is unjust and the definition of injustice is no other than the not performance of covenant. And whatsoever is not unjust is just.
The fourth Law is that a man which receiveth benefit from another of mere grace, endeavour that he which giveth it, have no reasonable cause to repent him of his good will. Breach of this law is called ingratitude.
The fifth Law is complaisance: that every man strive to accommodate himself to the rest. The observers of this law may be called sociable; the contrary, stubborn, insociable, froward, intractable.
The sixth Law is that upon caution of the future time, a man ought to pardon the offences past of them that repenting, desire it.
The seventh Law is that in revenges, men look not at the greatness of the evil past, but the greatness of the good to follow.
The eighth Law is that no man by deed, word, countenance, or gesture, declare hatred or contempt of another. The breach of which law is commonly called contumely.
The ninth Law is that every man acknowledge another for his equal by nature. The breach of this precept is pride.
The tenth law is that at the entrance into the conditions of peace, no man require to reserve to himself any right, which he is not content should be reserved to every one of the rest. The breach of this precept is arrogance, and observers of the precept are called modest.
The eleventh law is that if a man be trusted to judge between man and man, that he deal equally between them.
The twelfth law is that such things as cannot be divided, be enjoyed in common, if it can be; and if the quantity of the thing permit, without stint; otherwise proportionably to the number of them that have right.
The thirteenth law is the entire right, or else...the first possession (in the case of alternating use), of a thing that can neither be divided nor enjoyed in common should be determined by lottery.
The fourteenth law is that those things which cannot be enjoyed in common, nor divided, ought to be adjudged to the first possessor; and in some cases to the first born, as acquired by lot.
The fifteenth law is that all men that mediate peace be allowed safe conduct.
The sixteenth law is that they that are at controversie, submit their Right to the judgement of an Arbitrator.
The seventeenth law is that no man is a fit Arbitrator in his own cause.
The eighteenth law is that no man should serve as a judge in a case if greater profit, or honour, or pleasure apparently ariseth [for him] out of the victory of one party, than of the other.
The nineteenth law is that in a disagreement of fact, the judge should not give more weight to the testimony of one party than another, and absent other evidence, should give credit to the testimony of other witnesses.




Hobbes's philosophy includes a frontal assault on the founding principles of the earlier natural legal tradition, disregarding the traditional association of virtue with happiness, and likewise re-defining "law" to remove any notion of the promotion of the common good.Hobbes has no use for Aristotle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle)'s association of nature with human perfection, inverting Aristotle's use of the word "nature." Hobbes posits a primitive, unconnected state of nature in which men, having a "natural proclivity...to hurt each other" also have "a Right to every thing, even to one anothers body"and "nothing can be Unjust" in this "warre of every man against every man" in which human life is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."Rejecting Cicero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cicero)'s view that men join in society primarily through "a certain social spirit which nature has implanted in man," Hobbes declares that men join in society simply for the purpose of "getting themselves out from that miserable condition of Warre, which is necessarily consequent...to the naturall Passions of men, when there is no visible Power to keep them in awe." As part of his campaign against the classical idea of natural human sociability, Hobbes inverts that fundamental natural legal maxim, the Golden Rule. Hobbes's version is "Do not that to another, which thou wouldst not have done to thy selfe."

What are your thoughts?

SkyBurn
05-05-2013, 04:56 AM
I quite like them. They seem to be very solid and Naturalistic.

However, many of these rules are quite subjective. What may seem to be in accordance with them for one individual may not apply to another. The law is put into place to avoid subjectivity where possible.

arcticwolf
05-05-2013, 05:03 AM
I will answer or you will have convo with yourself bud! :P

I am not a big fan of philosophy, as it uses concepts and mental constructs. To me as a Buddhist it just does not cut it. Don't jump all over me as the uncultured savage who does not appreciate all the good it has done, I do, it just can't answer the ultimate questions.

I'm not gonna answer to all the points. What I'm gonna do is to say that impartial observation, or better yet direct, refined, fine tuned perception applied to the impartial observation of the stream of reality is the only way to tell for sure.

Any theory it's at best a close guess, and then it is the glue of believing that something works the way we hope it does because we deducted that it should work that way.

I am a big fan of knowing over believing, knowing beats believing every single time. That's why I don't believe in anything at all.

All these theories, and all of them claim the superiority or what have you over other theories, new ones replacing old ones and on and on.

What I'm thinking all this cosmic dance don't make sense there has got to be a better way, I wanna go straight to the point, I don't wanna dance around it for ever.

In conclusion, if I can't see nature clearly for what it really is what good are my conclusions?

If the premise is wrong all the conclusions will be wrong no matter how sterling the logic leading up to them.

So amigo, unless my perception process is right on the money, all that I see I can't really see clearly. I want to know for sure I don't wanna keep on guessing or taking someone's word for it I rather know for sure for my own self.

I know it don't make sense, just hate to see you talking to yourself friend, at least you'll get a response from a Buddhist point of view. :laugh:

Stefan
05-05-2013, 05:24 AM
I actually don't agree with Hobbes by the way. His conclusions of despotism, for example, were quite off. Of course, he makes the basis of much of the natural law that has influenced today's common law found in the U.S and British commonwealths.

SPQR
05-05-2013, 06:20 AM
Wow, very good post. Are you, yourself a Voluntaryist?