Critical Context of Law

Assignment 3

10. Karl believes that he possesses the ‘right to survive’. Is this compatible with the theories associated with his favourite author Thomas Hobbes? Is this compatible with general modern understanding and interpretation of human rights law?

Karl views his right to survive as well as many other rights as his natural rights. He considers these rights to be essentially his but, at the same time, this view on rights do not absolutely coincide with views of his favourite author, Thomas Hobbes, on the concept of human rights. In fact, views of Karl on his rights are the superficial view on the theoretical framework of human rights developed by Thomas Hobbes. To put it more precisely, Hobbes was a renowned proponent of the concept of natural rights. Therefore, he naturally admitted the existence of natural rights in individuals and this is exactly where Karl agrees with him. Karl believes that al his rights he has declared his rights by nature or natural rights he possesses since the birth because all people are born with natural rights. His right to survive seems to him to be as natural as the right to breathe or to sleep. However, it is obvious that Karl manipulates with his rights according to his needs and, if all his rights are exercised to the full extent, then other people would likely to suffer from the violation of their natural rights. In this regard, Karl’s views do not coincide with the theoretical framework developed by Thomas Hobbes. To put it more precisely, as other theorists working on the concept of social contract, Thomas Hobbes argued that natural rights of individuals cannot be unlimited. Instead, they need to be bound to certain agreement, which people set to establish basic rules and principles according to which they can exercise their rights within the society they live in. In this regard, it is possible to refer to works of such philosophers as John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau, who also supported the idea of the existence of social contract or agreement between people to live in the society on the ground of the contract which imposes certain boundaries on their natural rights.
In this respect, it should be said that philosophers supported the idea of the social contract, but the role of people and the state were different. In fact, Hobbes stood on the ground that the state should be and is created by humans on the basis of the social contract. But Hobbes understand reasons and motives of such a contract in a different way compared to Rousseau. To put it more precisely he argued that people agree on the supremacy of the state and on the laws established by the government because they need protection. Hence, the state is created by people to protect them from external threats, such as natural phenomena or conflicts with other people. In response to the protection the state ensures to people, the latter agree to obey to rules and norms established within the state. In such a way, people naturally to the social contract which originally put some people into a higher social position if they govern the state, while others in the lower social position because they need the protection of the state and they agree to obey to its rules and norms. According to Hobbes, people naturally agree on the social contract and rules and norms established by the state because they seek for peace. They do not want to put their life at risk to the extent that they are ready a part of their natural rights for the sake of their security.
Consequently, according to Hobbes, the existence of the state and its normal functioning contributes to the civil tranquillity. In such a context, it seems to be quite logical that if people agree on rules and norms established by the state they would naturally live in peace and social tranquillity will be ensured by the obedience of all people. However, such obedience does not contribute to the equality of people because social position of people differ, while the agreement or social contract prevents people from conflict or violation of existing social order because of the rules and norms established by the state.
Hobbes stands on the ground that people need the state to protect them and they consciously agree to limit their natural rights and liberties, being obedient to the state. In such a way, according to Hobbes, people naturally agree on their inequality through obedience to the state and they practically sanction such inequality by the social contract.
Therefore, it is obvious that Karl comes into clashes with the theory of Thomas Hobbes concerning natural rights and social contracts. In fact, Karl views natural rights superficially and he does not take into consideration the position of other people and requirements imposed on him by the society. In other words, Karl ignores not only the mere possibility of the existence of a social contract but he also ignores point-blank the existence of natural rights in other people. He views his rights as superior to existing legal norms and principles. Naturally, such an attitude to his natural rights leads to the violation of basic human rights of other people because Karl will not observe existing legal norms, if they come into clashes with his rights or, to put it more precisely, what he views as being his natural rights.
Obviously, Karl should consider the concept of social contract to understand his favourite writer Thomas Hobbes. The concept of the social contract would define accurately the boundaries, where his rights and civil liberties end and his moral obligations and legal duties begin. At any rate, it proves beyond a doubt that Karl views ideas of Thomas Hobbes one-sidedly. He believes that natural rights exist for him only, whereas natural rights of other people can be ignored and violated easily. Anyway, Karl fails to understand the theoretical framework developed by Thomas Hobbes that leads to the erroneous and extremely narrow and shallow interpretation of his concepts of natural rights. On the other hand, this concept is very important for the modern society and existing legislation because human rights and civil liberties comprise the core of the modern social system and justice system. The existing legal norms protect human rights and liberties but also impose legal duties to set the social contract.

 
References
Ardent, H. C. (1972). Crises of the Republic. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
Hobbes, T. (2005). Leviathan. New York: Routledge.
Epperson, J. (2001). Causes of the Civil War. New York: Routledge.
Locke, J. (2000). Two Treatise of Government. New York: Penguin Classics.
Miller, E.S. (1994). “Economic Regulation and the Social Contract: An Appraisal of Recent Developments in the Social Control of Telecommunications.” Journal of Economic Issues. 28(3), p. 799-811.
Murray, I.H. (1994). The Second Awakening. New York: Touchstone.
Norton, A. (1999). People and a Nation. New York: Touchstone.
Rousseau, J.-J. (2004). Discourse on Inequality. New York: St. Martin Press.