Politics- Natural law
Natural law is based on the moral of a person. Natural law is essential for the democracy and for many politic ideologies. Not even God can change these laws. Natural law was founded in the ancient world, but during the 18th century people started to develop the thoughts from this time. Natural law is the predecessor to human rights.
I think that Natural law is a very good idea! I agree with Aristoteles when he says that it is unnatural that one person takes the liberty to make decisions over all the others in a society, and decide everything on his own. But on the other hand I think that a society without some sort of a leader would be a bit chaotic. I think that Locke (1632-1704) had very good thoughts. He says that every human being has both rights and responsibilities. Everybody has right to freedom, life and property. If somebody insults these rights he should be reproved. If a discussion is developed, it is good to have a leader who can solve the problem in a fair way.
One of the Natural law’s policies is that “contracts should be hold”. I totally agree with this! If you promise something you should stick to it. If you know that you will not be able to make what you have promised you should not promise anything from the beginning.
This is my opinions… What do you think? Are we all born with rights which nothing can change?
/ Hanna
Well, do we not have the rights to change our rights?
You could actually link this to the article below! That God gave mankind a free will, hence he does decide, in a way, but what he decided is that we can make our own decisions! (:
I totally agree with you about that we need some sort of a leader in the society, but that leader should not decide everything, the people should have the right to come with their opinions too.
However I don't really agree with that law about that "contracts should be hold" if it means that you can't change it, because if you come up with an idea that is better, then you don't have the right to change it? Or have I misunderstood it?
Awesome blog post, Hanna!
I agree with you that everyone should have a right to life, freedom and property, however these rights are often abused. However, in a perfect society, everyone should have a right to these basic things.
However, I don't think that if you promise something, that you can't break that promise later. Breaking that promise can sometimes benefit the other person more than if you'd held the promise. And it may harm yourself if you'd uphold the promise. For example, if your friend would make you promise not to say anything before that person would tell you what he/she was going to tell you, and that person told you that he/she had just murdered 14 children just for fun; would you tell the police? Or would you stay quiet just to hold that promise you made?
First of all, very good article Hannah!
Second, I agree with Victoria that you could link it to “my” article concerning the part that God gave humans the opportunity to decide for themselves etc.
Third, I like your question Gabriel and I can give you my opinion on it. Since this Natural law is based on the moral of a person you will have to remember that moral and ethics are your guideline. You may change your rights but I think it is all about remembering what is the meaning with Natural laws, which are the moral and ethic of a person.
Fourth, good point of view Lia! Although, consider the first sentence of Hannah’s text. Natural law is based on the moral of a person. On your question about the person who has killed several persons and what to do etc, I believe that contracts should be held as long as you do not act against your moral. A contract may be broken if your moral and ethic tell you to do so, otherwise you forget that “Natural law is based on the moral of a person”.
Please correct me if I am wrong!
BTW, this is really fun, or is it not?
(:
Olof, seems like I overlooked that part! Though doesn't that sort of say that you should hold contracts, though you don't have to if it doesn't feel right? So isn't that really a worthless rule/guideline? Or have I understood this wrong?
And yes, this is a lot of fun!
BTW, Olof, I've read your fantastic article but I won't comment on it since I simply agree with everything which you wrote :)
Great job! If you look at the American Declaration of Independance you can see that they start out claiming "We hold these truths to be self-evident". Self-evident meaning based on natural law. Would you agree with the truths they claim to be self-evident? Are the laws laid down here natural laws? And, if so, can they be altered?
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/
Lia, I think that Olof gave you a good answer! Think of the moral =) And that's the same for you Alexandra :) Think of the moral ;)
I think it's better to promise that you will TRY to do something if you're not sure, instead of promise it and then you know that you might not be able to stick to the promise...
It's better to not promise and do it than it is to promise something and don't do it...I think =)
But of course sometimes it happens that you can't stick to the promise, but "contracts should be hold" is something to aim for =)
;)
Great article Hanna. I totaly agree wtih you that we all need a leader due to the fact that if there were not a leader it would be chaos. We need a leader to relie on in diffcult times.
Olofs third point i totally agree with. The natural law is all about moral and ethics.
The Natural law must have been related to religon back in the days when the people lived after the religons principles. But today the religon does not have that kind of influence on the moral and ethics as it did in the 17th century.
I say like Olof, very nice article.
I simply agree in what you are writing, the natural law is very important and I also agree that we need a leader that the human kind can follow. The human rights is very important but I think it comes with some responsibility just because we are free it does not mean we can do what we want to. The contract is very good in my opinion because it shows the responsibility of human kind and that we can trust each other that if we make a promise we should keep it. =)
This is a really interesting and good article Hanna!
Interesting and important thougts. I agree with Gabriel though, in my opinion we do have right to thange our rights! But i totally agree on that we need some kind of leader in the society! Good job Hanna! :)
Awesome article Hanna!
I feel that, as you say that the natural law is kind of a predecessor of today's human rights. And to answer your question, I believe that we are all born with certain rights, may them be given to us by god or the United Nations' council of human rights. These rights should not be taken away from us, and those people who do these terrible crims to humanity should be punished. But in what way? Didn't Saddam Hussein have human rights even if he had violated those same laws? Did not he have the right to live? Are the human rights or natural law if you will, the same for everyone?
when I think of contracts should be hold and big things such as the parlament I think it could be hard to stick to one thing all the time because everything controlled by different opinions and of course money. It is easy to change someones thoughts and it hasn't necesary needs to happen with words because you can easily change it by take away some money from the budget or spread rumors both in this case parlament and maybe not media at that time but the words on the street is just as strong. Anyway good article!
Hanna, that is a very interesting subject to follow !!
We all want to be free and have a right to speak up our minds! :)
Nowadays it is possible (Can you see what we are ding right now? Writing our opinions ona PUBLIC blogg, sort of! and we have a right to do it!), but in seventeenth or eighteenth century not everybody was heard! I guess we are lucky to live in today's world, where we can say what we think and we will be listened!
First of all, a very good article Hanna! :)
One thing that I think about is how you see the difference between a natural law and your own thoughts? Because the natural laws are a type of obvious things, then think if a person thinks that it is okay to e.g. to don’t give their children food.
Natural laws are a kind of obvious thought and it is a good thing, but I actually think that you need a leader because of the chaotic that you wrote in the text.
Thanks everybody!
I agree with you Calle that the religion does not have the same influence on us as it had before, but I think that the "Natural law-thinking" is forever =)at least I hope so =)
Exactly Osacar, we show responsibility when we are keeping a promise!
Andreas, I really think that you have interesting thoughts about who gives us the rights we are born with! I think that the Natural law is for everybody, wherever you are born in the world=) Of course some people will always try to break these laws and live a better life themselves.
I`m not so great on Saddam Hussein, but maybe he was a threat for some people so they decided to get rid of him, and in that way they broke the natural law. (please, correct me if I`m wrong)
I agree with you Jacob when you say that money decides very much in our society today! But the natural law is based on the moral of a person, and let us hope that the moral says no to bribe people.
Good point Kamilla! We are allowed to say what we want :D
Very interesting thoughts about our own thinking and the natural law!!! I don`t have any correct answer to that, but I hope that you are born with a good moral and that you want the best for your children and the people around you. Then the society might give you a napoleon complex :P (word of the week) and the moral is not what`s appreciated the most when he/she is going to make a decision.
I really agree with you on this one. The Natural law seems to bee a good idea. You have given me something to think about here ;) good article :)
