.

Types of right concept

Язык: русский
Формат: реферат
Тип документа: Word Doc
0 623
Скачать документ

What, if anything, justifies government in claiming authority over its
subjects? Why do you think citizens are obligated to obey their
government? Compare and contrast the different approaches of natural
law, positive law, social contract theory, and utilitarianism, to these
questions. In your view, is any of these approaches satisfactory in
legitimizing governmental authority? Why, or why not?

The government possesses monopoly for legal use of means of compulsion
and formally plays a role of the arbitrator in distribution of the
blessings. There is a danger, that the government will distribute them
to own advantage. In this connection in democratic societies the
pluralism and competition of political influences of various subjects of
the policy participating during acceptance of the state decisions takes
place. For the beginning, it would be desirable to notice, that the
government has the certain characteristic features. First, realization
of authority occurs to the help of the detached device in the certain
territory to which the state sovereignty is distributed. Second, this
authority has an opportunity to use means of the organized and
legislatively established violence. In such kind the government
represents the best, fullest expression of political authority.

The need of authority develops of objective necessity of the
organization of a social production which is impossible without
submission of all participants for a single will. The authority is
necessary for maintenance of integrity, unity and stability of a
society. Important thus to pay attention to a problem of requital. The
matter is that as a result of a division of labour in a society there is
a dissatisfaction concerning that you have given and that has in
exchange received. And the majority of people in this connection feels a
dissatisfaction, social intensity is created. The society requires the
constant coordination of private interests, their reduction public
interest which is reached by means of submission of will of separate
people to strong-willed abilities other others able better to define the
purposes and to force itself them to carry out. Capacity and authority
of authority on much depend on its legitimacy which is its basic,
strategic resource. Legitimacy is a legality, the consent, mutual trust
concerning a society, people and the political authority, consisting in
a recognition of its right for a supervising role. Legitimacy includes
two components: opinion of people on legality of the given authority, on
the one hand, and comprehension by ruling circles of the right on
authority, with another.

Invested with authority should lean not only on the physical compulsion
authorized by the law, but also should convince citizens (people) of own
necessity, justify the positions and actions. There are various theories
explaining legitimacy of authority. The basis of theories is made, first
of all, with the attitude to the right and the law. According to the
theory of positivism the essence of the right and the law cannot be
distinguished, and thus the law is the form, and the right it not one
law, and all sum or set of laws. Or set of norms. And consequently the
right represents set of norms established by the state and, provided
with his compulsory force. The aspiration to identify the right and the
law, certainly has under itself the certain basis: in this case
frameworks of the right strictly are formalized, become “purer”, that is
erected in the law admits as the right only: outside of the law is not
present and it can not be right.

However in a vein of such approach supporters of positivism reduce the
right to the law and treat his compulsory character as essence of the
right and his distinctive feature. On such logic it turns out, that the
official authority can erect wrongly (and in general all not legal
social norms) can at own discretion and to erect to an arbitrariness in
the right. The help of compulsion (the order of authority) solve thus
problems not only subjective character (a formulation of norms of the
legislation), but also the objective plan (a formulation and creation of
the right), and also a scientific structure (an establishment and
finding-out of specificity of the right, his difference from other
social norms). Adherents of such positivistic identification of the
right and the law reduce a problem of social sense and a role of the
right to a question on compulsory value of norms of the legislation.

Such unilateral sight at the right, certainly, leads to to that the
authority does not require in eaaeoeiaoeee as itself creates rules of
law. The usual person turns out discharged from statement managements.
At data of the right to set of norms, it becomes something external for
the person, imposed to it from above. The similar narrow treatment
deforms the right as for the person holes not in themselves are
valuable, and those real opportunities and the blessings with which they
provide. Absolute in another way supporters of the theory of the natural
right concern to the given question.

According to the natural-legal concept: the natural right – an
embodiment of objective properties and values of ” the present right “,
acting as a due sample, the purpose and criterion for an estimation of a
positive law and establishing authority corresponding the right (the
legislator, the states as a whole), for definition of their
natural-legal importance, value. Thus the natural right is understood as
already by the nature moral (religious, moral) the phenomenon and is
initially allocated with corresponding absolute value. The concept of
the natural right, thus includes various moral, moral characteristics.

The aspiration to bring a strong moral basis under the legislation and
separate laws, – is doubtless, rather noble business. It is possible to
dream only that under each law issued in this or that country there was
a solid moral, moral basis. However categories of evil and goods are
important for definition of essence of morals, but not essence of the
right. Morals it too a normative social regulator, however, norms of the
right and norm of morals have essential distinctions. The question on a
parity of the state and morals is very much combined, because in many
cases it is completely opposite things. From the occurrence of the
concept “state”, both authority, and scientists dealing with a problem
of the theory of the state and the right, diligently was outlined, that
a basis of any state system are moral standards of a society. And as a
vivid example of such statements the theocratic theory of occurrence of
the state can serve. She considers the state as the Divine craft, as the
Charism to humanity. Also that laws of the state should be based on the
Divine laws.

But also there is also completely opposite sight at a problem of mutual
relation of the state and morals. Many known politicians in general
denied interrelation of the state and morals. In particular U.Cherchil
spoke ” the State has no morals but only interests “, but I think that
it not absolutely correct point of view, though and not deprived the
bases. One more theory which considers the given problem, the theory of
a contractual origin of the state has arisen in depth of centuries. In
Ancient Greece some sophists considered, that the state has arisen as a
result of contractual association of people with the purpose of
maintenance of validity.

Supporters of the named theory recognized that to the state the natural
condition which they characterized differently precedes. For Russo, for
example, people in a natural condition possess the born rights and
freedom, for Gobbs this condition ” wars of all against all “. Then for
the sake of the world and well-being the public contract between each
member of a society and the created state consists. Under this contract
people transfer a part of the rights of the government and take up
engagement subordinate to it, and the state undertakes to protect
inaliennable human rights, i.e. the right of the property, freedom,
safety. The agreement of people, on Russo’s ideas, – a basis of
legitimate authority. In result everyone agreeing submits to the general
will, but at the same time becomes one of participants of this will. The
sovereignty belongs to people as a whole, and governors are
representatives of people, obliged to report to it and replaced on his
will. The contractual theory has begun the doctrine about people’s
sovereignty, iiaeeiio?ieueiinoe, the accountability before people of all
state – power structures, their removability.

There are many the different points of view to definition of legitimacy
of authority. According to M.Veber, for example, legitimacy is not only
legality of the given authority from the formal-legal point of view, and
more likely – the phenomenon of the social psychology consisting in
acceptance by a society of the given political authority or, at least,
passive obedience to it. So again arising modes can become legitimate if
will provide to itself support of a significant part of a society. In
this connection the nature of legitimacy, its sources and ways of
maintenance can be rather various, depending on a cultural level,
traditions, psychology of the population. How the authority gets
legitimacy? In due time M.Veber has allocated three opportunities:

1. Due to tradition. By virtue of that “always” (from the point of view
of citizens) was legitimate. The authority has traditional character
when she is consecrated by authority of long since existing patriarchal
establishments, and also religious norms. Such way of legitimizing
governmental authority is characteristic for a monarchy. 2. As the
rational-legal authority existing there where to the persons in power,
obey by virtue of a recognition of legitimacy of laws due to which they
came to domination. This type of authority is based on belief by virtue
of the right, the law. 3. As the charismatic authority based on belief
in the head, the leader to which are attributed great, sometimes
personal qualities: in some cases the element of worship (for example
when the question is the religious prophet) is possible, and can happen,
that such belief results from display of exclusive talents. The
charismatic type of legitimate authority is under construction on
reckless trust to the leader, the blind submission involved on fear and
an instinct of self-preservation.

In my opinion, democratic legitimacy is based on primacy of the rights
and freedom of the person, electivity of the central authorities, the
constitutional limitation of a field of activity of the state, equality
of all political forces working within the framework of the
constitution. Liberal-democratic legitimacy – a result of long
evolutions of a society, transformation of humanistic principles of
equality, freedom, solidarity, validity in steady features of a way of
life of a society. In conditions of civilized social attitudes the major
party legitimizing is legal settlement and practical realization of
change of parties and the maximum officials at authority. It first of
all – observance of terms of general election, stay in the rank of the
president; leaving of the government in resignation at disapproval of
his policy, leaving of figures from a political arena (even temporary)
on ethical reasons. Only the authority strictly observing norms of the
right receives legitimacy in opinion of people which is ready to support
her without threat of application of force. Legitimacy is always
connected to observance of the strict political responsibility state and
public figures before the citizens, and not just before parliament or
voters of the district.

What general principles govern the origins and organizations of the
community (polis) according to Plato? According to Hobbes? How does the
answer each gives shape his view of justice and the proper form of
government?

Platon puts forward idea of the ideal state in which there is a class of
philosophers, a class of soldiers, or guards, and a class of
handicraftsmen, farmers and workers. In Platon’s ideal state all should
be precisely fixed, all is constructed under the certain plan which
anybody from citizens cannot break. That is why it differs from the
known states-policies described by fragility, absence of the strict
order and, as consequence, domination of injustice. Platon connects the
ideal state with leadership of the law. All citizens of the state should
submit to the law equally. Moreover, ideal polis is that state where the
law predominates. To provide observance of the lawful order in a life,
it is necessary to develop special system of the measures providing
durability and stability of the law, his compulsion for all. Proceeding
from properties of the state, it is necessary to deduce logically his
private characteristics, to define his device, and finally, to solve the
problem on a role of individuals in it. Thus, Platon’s logic goes in
sequence of conclusions from the state to the individual. Individual
freedom admits only that measure in what she is necessary for the state.

However according to Platon’s idea about the policy, in the ideal state
natural propensities of people are taken into account, and compulsion is
called, only to promote fuller realization of these propensities.

Platon’s ideas about the policy and the government are some similar to
ideas Hobbes. Gobbs’s doctrine about the state is based on concept of
the natural law. The first basic natural law says: everyone should
achieve the piece by all means available at his order and if it cannot
receive the piece, it can search and use all means and advantages to
war. Directly second law follows from this law: everyone should be ready
to refuse the right on everything when others too wish it as it counts
this refusal necessary for the piece and self-defense. Besides refusal
of the rights there can be still a carry of these rights. The third
natural law says, that people should adhere to own contracts. In this
law to be function of validity. The theory of the State of Gobbs
logically follows from his theory of the right and morals. The basis of
the state lays in reasonable aspiration of people to self-preservation.
From here it is clear, that the confidence of the safety is necessary
for observance of natural laws, and for achievement of safety there is
no other way as connection of sufficient quantity of people for mutual
protection. For general welfare, people, as Gobbs considers, should
agree to refuse the rights in the name of the piece and preservation of
a life and to be united together for performance of the agreement. Such
contract or such transferring of the rights also is formation of the
state. Gobbs defines the state as follows: ” The state is one person or
assembly which will by virtue of the agreement of many people is the
law for all of them as it can use forces and abilities of everyone for
maintenance of the general piece and protection.

The person or assembly to which will all submit other, receives the name
of the Supreme authority; all other are citizens “.

Thus, the State, by virtue of transferring on it of the rights of all
possesses all rights belonging to the person in a natural condition,
that is rights of the state are boundless. At Gobbs, the purpose of the
state – to abolish a natural condition of the person, and to install the
order at which to people safety and quiet existence would be provided.
Clearly, that for preservation of this condition of safety the
government should be armed with the necessary rights.

Do we have an obligation to help starving people here and/or in other
lands? If so, what is the basis of this obligation? If not, do we have
any other reason to help such people? Identify and critically use any of
the philosophies we studied including those in the text that we did not
touch upon in class.

The problem of obligation in helpping starving people here and in other
lands follows from a problem of a parity of the state, the law and
morals. There is a question, whether the state is obliged to help the
citizens and other requiring people? It is possible to answer this
question proceeding from concept of a legal status of the person. The
legal status of the person in the general view can be characterized as
system of the rights and the duties, legislatively fixed by the state in
constitutions and other legal certificates. In the rights and duties not
only samples, standards of behaviour which the state counts obligatory,
useful, expedient for normal ability to live of social system are fixed,
but also main principles of mutual relations of the state and the person
are opened.

Interrelations of the state and the person demand precise orderliness.
It is caused special by such importance of attitudes for maintenance
existing building, for his normal functioning. The precondition of
possession the rights and duties is citizenship as the certain legal
condition of the person. It expresses a legal accessory of the
individual to the state which ” acts in the legal form, receives legal
expression in institute of citizenship which norms define conditions and
the order of purchase, loss of citizenship, etc. ” . Citizenship is the
legislative ground for the person to have the legal rights and freedom
and to carry out the duties established by the law, i.e. the basis of a
legal status of the person. Citizenship and legal consequences following
from him are inseparable by nature the states, from his social
orientation. Rights and duties fix complex system of interrelations of
the state and the person, based on democratic principles.

Rights of the person is its social opportunities determined by economic
conditions of a life of a society and legislatively fixed by the state.
In them that measure of freedom which is objectively possible for the
person at a concrete historical stage of development of a society is
expressed. Within the limits of this formally fixed freedom
self-determination of the person is carried out, conditions of real
using by the social blessings in various spheres political, economic,
welfare and private life are established. Rights of the person is not
potential, but the real social opportunities of the individual following
directly from the law. The state fixes rights of the person not any way.
The set of the rights, their volume are always caused by a level of
economic development of a society. The legislator can fix only such
rights for which realization the social and economic and political
preconditions following from real public attitudes were generated.
Rights of the person – not “gift” of the legislator, and the social
opportunities, providing to the person the certain standard of a life.

The democratic society is a society of social justice. Therefore
interconditionality of the rights and duties represents the necessary
factor of maintenance of his normal ability to live. At a present stage
of development of a society the social responsibility covers not only
the attitude of the person to the rights, to their most active
realization and use in interests of a society, but also the attitude of
the person to the duties which is connected to comprehension of the debt
and necessity of performance of legal requirements. Basic value is got
with a problem of legal equality in various spheres of a life of a
society and the state. Its decision assumes creation by the state of the
reliable guarantees providing such equality the Declaration of
Independence proclaims, that there are inaliennable human rights for
which maintenance the state is created. Taking into account all told, I
think, that State is obliged to help the requiring citizens.

As to not citezens and people living in other countries, this problem is
solved with the help of international law and main principles of morals
and morals. The list of the rights and freedom of the person and the
citizen, peculiar to a lawful state, contains in the international
certificates. It first of all the General declaration of human rights
accepted by General Assembly of the United Nations on December, 10
1948., the International pact on the economic, social and cultural
rights, the International pact about the civil and political rights
accepted at XXI session of General Assembly of the United Nations on
December, 16 1966. The general declaration of the rights and freedom of
the person, the accepted United Nations in 1948 will consist of 30
clauses. In it it is proclaimed, that ” all people are born free and
equal on the advantage and the rights. They are allocated reason and
conscience and should act in the attitude each other in spirit of a
brotherhood “. The international declarations and contracts establish
principles which assert necessity of the help to less developed
countries.

I think, that any state carries out also universal mission without which
there can not be no society. Realization of various collective needs of
a society concerns to performance of common causes first of all: the
organization of public health services, formation, social security,
automobiles and communications, construction of irrigational
constructions, struggle against epidemics, criminality, measures on
prevention of war and maintenance of the world, etc. The Universal
applicability of the state in a more comprehensive sense will be to be
the tool of the social compromise, mitigations and overcomings of
contradictions, search of the consent and co-operation of various layers
of the population and public forces. If the state really wants
prosperity for the citizens, it should put moral standards in a basis of
the policy, adhering to positions of the democratic concept of the state
which are based on uniqueness and self-value of each person, his respect
on the part of the state, care of each citizen of a society, the person
and the state, and also the help on the part of the state that who
cannot independently provide itself.

Нашли опечатку? Выделите и нажмите CTRL+Enter

Похожие документы
Обсуждение

Оставить комментарий

avatar
  Подписаться  
Уведомление о
Заказать реферат!
UkrReferat.com. Всі права захищені. 2000-2020