The law of nature allows us to regulate our own action, but also allows each to regulate others: if some people violate this natural law, each and every one of us can put ourselves in the position of a judge and punish the offender
laws to control the state of nature
critics argue that human beings act based on their passions and desires rather than reason.
such as Hobbes
individuals own themselves and their bodies, which gives them freedom.
right to your own body only, not others
the laws of nature, which forbid us from harming others or their property, provide a form of order in the state of nature.
property is accepted into normal life, compared to life
humans are essentially rational beings and can live in peace with each other without a strong government.
more optimistic view of human nature, but still focused on rationality and reason (enlightenment values).
Locke believed that humans could live peacefully with each other and regulate themselves according to natural laws, even without a governing power
state of nature isn't necessarily needing to be solved by bringing in a common power
but individuals have an obligation to obey the ruler regardless of any specific agreemen
blurry idea of consent means that transition from state of war/nature to good society is not so clear after all?
fear can lead people to give their consent to the sovereign
isnt that just cont the state of nature/war as fear
nternational anarchy and the lack of barriers to expansion may have contributed to the relegation of Indigenous peoples outside the community of states.
realism
tion's population becomes too large for its institutions to support, it is acceptable for them to establish colonies elsewhere
acial hierarchy
Hobbes believed that before governments were established, people had the right to do whatever they needed to survive.This idea could be used to justify colonialism and expansion
but isnt he saying its bad??
state of nature and how it relates to international relations
realism anarchy
natural parental authority and the rights of mothers.
this is interesting cos not only does he include the personal into the political which seems a bit contradictory, but also in his awful state of nature i would argue that women still occupy similar roles so what does this have to do with his perfect society?
aws of nature are consistent with Christian teachings
reason and the pursuit of peace
colonial perception of human nature based on reason and rationality.
ere is constant insecurity and no room for progress or civilization
idea of progress and civilisation is still in use today in histeographical books and promotes a colonial view of the world
umans had equal rights to everything, even if someone else took something first
right to nature
ntial threat to each other and there is no way to generate a hierarchy or enforceable moral standards.
but how does this sovereign come about then?
state of nature where there is no political power and life is characterized by conflict and equality.
mechanism like the state is needed to enforce common terms and definitions about the world
having a state, a sovereign gives meaning to things, without it there is nothing meaningful so anything (bad) can happen
rong government, there would be constant war and death
no one to lead
We know what it is for men to live without government
Bentham's view of "state of nature" aligns nicely with Hobbes. It would be useful to remind students of the way in which the vision of "State of Nature" leads to conclusions regarding what Social Contract should be. I would ask students who Madison might agree with, or at least who he seems to have taken into consideration. ( "If men were perfect . . .")
Keywords : anticommons, copyright, intellectual property, Lockean Proviso, patent, property rights, state of nature, trademark, utilitarian theory