Preview

Women Atrocities

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
23236 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Women Atrocities
Chapter 7 : The Conflict of Legal norms and social norms.

Introduction

Since, the evolution of society took place and man decided to form a state regulating its citizens with a set of framed laws there has always been a flux between social and legal norms. Legal norms have been formed on the basis of demands and needs of the society. They are formed in a way as to regulate the people, protecting their interest under laws which are called rights so as to ensure that society is proceeding towards development track. Whereas, social norms are the morals or principals which are a part of society since time memorial. Legal term given for such norms is customs. People are well verse with these customs and have no difficulty whatsoever in understanding them and their impacts. The conflict arises when there is flux between social and legal norms that is customs and laws or morals and principals respectively on deciding upon a particular matter. This particular issue will be discussed in detail in this paper and also their impact on social issues such as women atrocities in India as a case study.

Society Evolution

Society evolution can be defined as the process by which structural reorganization is affected through time, eventually producing a form or structure which is qualitatively different from the ancestral form. When humans began to come together and form a society there was a lot of freedom given to society when freedom was excess there was a threat of society getting disturbed and going to a state which cannot be managed. Hence people decided to give up certain of their rights in order to have security, this was termed as state of nature. The concept of state of nature was posited by the 17th century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man"

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The idea of the natural human is a topic discussed for centuries. Philosophers for generations asked question regarding the form of government that human beings react best in. In class we examined both Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's theory of the State of Nature which allowed us to see their viewpoints on humankind. Hobbes believes that humans are selfishly motivated and are constantly at war with one another. However, Locke has a more positive outlook. He believes that humans behaved based on the Law of Nature which is given to us by God (hobbeslockedocument). In Locke’s opinion, the State of Nature is free and has the right to life, liberty and property and if people want their rights respected, they should respect others. However, Locke is not delusional, he knows…

    • 536 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    A state of nature; a life where no governable state exists and no one possesses political power. ‘Why do we not live in a state of nature?’ some may ask. Why must we be under the government’s power? The first step in understanding why we have something, like the government, is to consider what life would be like without it. There has been many different concepts over time as to what a ‘state of nature’ really is and if life really would be awful without it. Initially, Hobbes believed that in a state of nature, all men would turn ‘nasty and brutish’ and life would turn into a never-ending cycle of crime and war as there would be no one there to stop us. On the contrary, Locke believed that man would be content in a state of nature, that life would be the opposite of awful and we would act morally towards each other due to the social contract. Thirdly, Rousseau thought that if we ever found ourselves in a state of nature, men would turn to savages, but would be happy with it.…

    • 1094 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    In this paper, I argue the mythical norm is a demonstration of how white and male power dominates the legal system of Canada and how the judiciary system interprets the law. First, this paper will look at how the mythical norm racializes those who are deemed as inferior specifically in the Aboriginal communities. Lastly, I look upon how the mythical norm creates boundaries between the sexes. The mythical norm is an ideal that creates oppression due to the beliefs of the myth.…

    • 1513 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan speaks of a state of nature: a consequence of human nature where there are “no legal or moral limits, and the only limiting factor is ones’ own power” (Masroori). This is mankind living in a condition absent of government or authority, where right and wrong do not apply. In the state of nature what matters is surviving in a world where vulnerability breeds fear, and everyone is a possible threat. “One doesn’t know for how long he/she can stay alive. At any moment another individual can attack and can kill you. Fear of unexpected and violent death, that sudden, brutal death is terrorizing.” (Masroori). In order to survive, one must be always on their guard, suspicious of their…

    • 610 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hobbes' Leviathan and Locke's Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes' and Locke's writings center on the definition of the "state of nature" and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and "the state of nature", a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes' Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler's powers. The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists' discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke's description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which "teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions," are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke's Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful. At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a…

    • 3013 Words
    • 87 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Hobbes Vs Locke

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Two of the most influential political philosopher and social contract theorists of all time, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both used ‘The State of Nature’ as a medium in order to understand the basic human nature and natural human rights in their writings. Both, then used their own understanding of the human nature in order to determine and justify the ideal form of government, its role and its powers. However, Locke and Hobbes reach markedly different conclusions. Hobbes argues that every man should concede all of his natural rights to the government and allow it to assume absolute power, while Locke argues that man is entitled to keep his natural rights and a government body is required only in order to protect those certain natural rights.…

    • 655 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were political philosophers of the seventeenth century who each attempted to decipher the best form of government. Though they were both naturalists, Locke and Hobbes shared very different views on the natural laws that moved humans and this led to radically different beliefs on what they thought to be the ideal form of government. The first conceptual difference between Hobbes and Locke is the necessity of a central authority for humans to be able to live together in a peaceful and stable environment. For both philosophers, when humans exist without any acting authority it is known as a state of nature. According to Hobbes a state of nature was a condition in which humans are constantly fearful for their safety and experience only fleeting moments of pleasure. This means that it is almost impossible to have any sort of meaningful existence without the presence of a universal authority, or as Hobbes calls it a Leviathan. In a Hobbesian state of nature, humans are all provided with four things: scarcity, equality, reason and a universal aversion to death. The scarcity of the world leads to a life or death competition for a limited amount of resources. This competition for basic needs, along with the ability to reason, leads to the understanding that the acquisition of resources for oneself, comes at the expense of another human. According to Hobbes, these rationalizations are always present in a state of nature and this leads to the idea that humans are naturally non-social animals. Hobbes believes that without a central power, humans have no chance of living together in peace. An important issue that arises both in both Locke and Hobbes is conditions in which a person can legitimately exit civil society. Hobbes’ view on the nature of civil society allows him to conclude that societies are held together by reason and not inclination or affection. Hobbes goes on to explain that once a civil society is in place, rationality will make…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    His theory is that individuals in their true nature are guided by their innate primal, animalistic instincts, rather then reason. Hobbes’ concept of the state of nature is based on his believe that morality such as the ideas of good and evil do not exist in tis state. He claims that with out guidance, man will use any power at his deposal, to defend his life and positions. In his book Leviathan, Hobbes describes this condition as war, in other words, it is every one against every one. (Hobbes) In addition, he depicted the state of nature as a state in which individuals are without any of the benefits that are taken for granted in modern society. Hobbes describes the lack of these benefits as: “No commerce, no agriculture, no account of time, no arts, no letters, and no society. (Hobbes)” Hobbes believes that without proper structure, man is in constant state of war. A state where an overbearing sense of fear and grief, triggers men to be on a constant defense in order to protect themselves, and their…

    • 1685 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The state of nature is a significant philosophical concept that permits social contract theorists to present an understanding of the human nature as well as provide a justification for the establishment of government. Locke and Hobbes have proposed contending versions of the state of nature in “Two Treatises of Government and Leviathan correspondingly, while arriving at very different conclusions (Locke 2005; Hobbes 1994). A primary difference between Hobbes and Locke is on how they describe a man. An assessment of their idea of pre-societal man shows a large extent of the difference in their viewpoints. This essay analyses Hobbe’s and Locke’s views on the state of nature and compares it with Locke’s to shed light on the variations of the great 17th century social contract theorists.…

    • 1561 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sixteenth century English philosopher, Tomas Hobbes believed that humankind originated in a time he called The State of Nature, which he argued “the life of man [is] solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Hobbes reasoned that once individuals escaped this state of nature, humans assembled to form civilizations and governments to protect themselves from outside threats. Hobbes coined this idea as the Social Contract theory, or an invisible document that civilized people are born into by forfeiting rights in return for safety. This lead Hobbes to argue that absolute sovereignty was the ideal form of government, where the sovereign being one individual or an elite group possessed complete control over all subjects in the…

    • 601 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    John Locke Questions

    • 938 Words
    • 3 Pages

    1. John Locke describes the “state of nature” as a sort of equality between men. No man has any rights over the other, and they can be free in doing what they want. All being able to use the same faculties. Locke also explains that although they are free it does not give them the right to hurt one another because the “natural law” still exists even through the “state of nature”. Locke defines the state of nature as political power. This “state of nature” is basically where humans can exist without a government or social contract. And that people would follow this “law of nature” and would protect it against anyone who did not follow it. “The execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Locke also mentions that eventually people would try to form a government to try to protect their rights further. The “state of nature” is more of a thought rather than something that actually happened in history.…

    • 938 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    He describes the state of nature as a condition without government. According to Hobbes, in the state of nature there are no rights nor are there any obligations and duties. In this state every man has power over their neighbor. Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan and his earlier work On the Citizen, he argues that all human are by nature equal in faculties of body and mind. That is, no natural inequalities are so great as to give anyone an inclusive benefit.…

    • 641 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    What does it mean to be in state of nature? The idea state of nature has no definite meaning because it is perceived differently by different philosophers. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each discussed state of nature and why political societies had to established. To understand the views of each philosopher about the state of nature we first have to understand what they think about human beings in a natural state. Hobbes believes humans to be fearful of death, wretched and in constant war with one another. Locke believes humans to be perfectly free and have morals. Thus, people in Locke’s state of nature have some kind of rights called natural right whereas, Hobbes believed beings in the state of nature to be a moral, meaning there is no right or wrong. Rousseau believes human beings to be “Noble Savages” and free and equal. Rousseau is the…

    • 714 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    "The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation of their property."(The Two Treaties, 9.222) To sum up, Hobbes's natural state is full of fear and chaos. Mankind by nature is evil but still dominated by reason. People are there to save themselves, desire for security, want to get rid of this terrible circumstances and seek a peaceful and orderly life. Therefore, people have entered into a social contract with each other, and agree to give up the original natural rights, give all the rights to a sovereign. Although Locke's state of nature is a peaceful, orderly, equal and free state under the domination of natural law, its natural state is not perfect and defective. "...in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others..."(9.123) According to Locke, in the state of nature, everyone has the power to implement law of nature and violate the right to punishment of the law of nature, and not a clearly defined law as a standard. There is no uniform enforcer and sanctions, will inevitably lead to social confusion and disordered.…

    • 418 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    State of Nature

    • 1374 Words
    • 6 Pages

    What is the state of nature? The state of nature is a term in political philosophy that describes a circumstance prior to the state and society's establishment. Philosophers, mainly social contract theory philosophers, and political thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau discussed and considered the "state of nature" as a starting point to their political and philosophical ideas. John Locke, whose work influenced the American Declaration of Independence, believes that the state of nature is the state where are individuals are completely equal, natural law regulates, and every human being has the executive power of the natural law. Similarly Jean Jacques Rousseau, whose writings are said to influence the French revolution, also assumed a state of nature prior to the formation of a "political person". However Rousseau had a different view about the state of nature. According to Rousseau the state of nature is a condition where private individual interest dominates over the public good and general will.…

    • 1374 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays