-
Moral Justification Of The State Interference With Rights And Liberties Of The Citizens
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 4 of 5
-
-
-
Thrasy Machus would support this view, according
to him, “Justice is the interest of the strongerâ€, Rulers makes laws to
protect their interest which automatically becomes what is just and
right thus justice in every state is the interest of the stronger.
c.
The Evolutionary Theory: - This considers the state, neither as a
divine institution nor as a deliberate human contrivance, it sees the
state coming into existence as a result of natural evolution. The
preposition that the state is a result of history means that the state
is a gradual and continuous development of human society. Out of a
grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving form of
manifestation towards a perfect and universal organization of man.
Political consciousness is spontaneous, natural twin born, with man and
the family, Aristotle was simple stating a fact when he said man is by
nature a political animal. The needs for order and security is an ever
present factors, man knows instinctively that he can develop the best of
which he is capable only by some form of political organization. At
first, it might be that the political unconsciousness, but just as the
forces of nature operated long before the law of gravitation, political
organization rested on the comity of mind, unconscious, dimly conscious
of fully conscious of certain moral ends presents through out the whole
course of development.
d. The Social Contract Theory:- The substances
of this theory is that the state is the result of an agreement entered
into by men who originally had no government organization, this means
that the history of the world is divisible into two clear periods. The
periods before the state was instituted and the period after. In the
first place, there was no state no human authority to formulate laws,
men lived subject to the laws of nature. After some time they parted
with their natural liberties and agreed to obey the laws prescribed by
the state.
The idea of a social contract could be seen as
people suffering from anarchy as illustrated by the proverbial tendency
of a large fish swallowing a small one. In his work the crito,6 Socrates
is presented as awaiting calmly the execution of his sentence, even
though he considered it unjust, because he would not break his covenant
with the state by escaping from prison into exile.
There
are three notable social contracts theorists; they are John Hocke (1632 –
1704). Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) J.J. Rousseau (1912 – 1978). The
contractarians have a common view, they all used the theory of the state
of nature as a premise in arriving at the theory of the social
contract. They have a common departure which is the state of nature but
their point of divergent is the disagreement on how the state of nature.
Despite their diverse views the fact remains that the state of nature
was not favourable enough to enhance political, social and economic
development, hence the social contract. Every person is expected to obey
the rules of the state and any individual that disobeyed must be forced
to conform or suffer the penalty, every individual must be forced to be
free, that is obeying the state.
CHAPTER ONE -- [Total Page(s) 5]
Page 4 of 5
-
