-
Moral Justification Of The State Interference With Rights And Liberties Of The Citizens
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 1 of 5
-
-
-
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
In the history of political philosophy there have been different views as to what relationship should exist between the citizens and the state in terms of state’s powers, authority compared to individual rights and liberties. An exponent of totalitarianism for example would want to argue that states authority and powers superceded the liberties and right of the citizens. The totalitarianism would justify a state’s interference on rights and liberties because they usually see the state as a higher organism then the individuals, accordingly to them, if these small organism (individuals) are to actuate their potentials, the state a higher organism of which they are a part, should first actualize it’s potentials before a favourable atmosphere can be created for individuals to achieve theirs.
The liberalists on the other hand would want to argue that the rights and liberties of individuals be abundantly unrestricted. They tend to perceive the person in the state individually and they feel he should be given a great amount of freedom to develop his innate potentials to the maximum. The purpose of this essay is to answer the rather vexed question being asked in political philosophy, is there any condition whatsoever in which the state can justifiably, interfere in the rights and liberties of the citizens? Or put differently, is it justifiable for human beings to be born free naturally and yet be put in chains by the artificial organism called the state?
For the purpose of actualizing the aim of this essay, an objective position would be maintained without taking into cognizance the position of the totalitarian and the liberalist as exemplified above rather, logical and morally substantive argument would be used to support this essay. Logical in the sense that the state is logically bound to interfere with rights and liberties of individuals on the basis of their definitions and function that could ascribed to individuals on the other. While the moral argument is based on the function the state has perform for the citizens that is functions which are morally good or geared toward moral ends.
This essay is also aimed at resolving the famous J.J. Rousseau’s Paradox that “Men are born free but everywhere are in chainsâ€1 This justification will employ the argument that men needs some amount of restraint which men are lacking and ought to be headed, which made them transcends the state of nature to a well organized state. If it is assumed that this need has been consciously realized and people went into a contract which now resembles a contract situation can be justified in behaving in a certain manner to obviate the circumstance the need for which led to the formation of a state.
Hegel’s theory of the state, and what he said about the relationship between the state and its citizens could also justify it, according to Hegel there is no other power superior to the sovereign state disputes or conflicts between different individuals in the state are settled by the state through the enacted laws and not through whimes and Caprices.
The state according to him is not a human construction freely and deliberately set up by some kind of social contract. Human beings did not decide to form a state to provide their needs, as we are told by philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM
A lot of misconceptions have been made about the relations that exist between the state and its citizens especially when it relates to power, authority and rights activism.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will help to unravel the sticking relationship between the state and its citizenry as regards the power of the state and right activism which would in turn help to maintain a cordial relationship between the citizenry and the state power.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 1 of 5
-
