The line between matters such as good and evil, just and unjust codes and Pandects is a thin one, and these matters have become highly controversial over the years . The laws governing different countries and religion have also been in conflict over the years. One reason for these controversies is that all countries have more than one religion practiced by the citizens of the country in question. The law of God justifies that which is holy, righteous and just. According to Hobbes, the law by the government is absolute and individuals have a moral obligation to abide by these laws. Cudworth strongly objects and acknowledges the law of nature which is linked with the law of God as absolute.
According to the social contract theory by Hobbes, a state which is at war has no rights or obligations to act in a particular manner. In essence, the state can do anything they deem right since any law does not govern them. Until an agreement has been reached which defines right over wrong and just over unjust, the command of the majority is perceived as the law. When a country becomes a sovereign, the sovereign who is in power has an obligation to implement this power on the subjects (Hobbes 20). Common power ceases to be effective, and the sovereign becomes the new law. What the sovereign commands become right and an obligation by the subjects. Those in power choose what is considered right over wrong. The laws of nature apply even when there is no set of laws or institutions which have been put in place to acts as the governing bodies. The laws of nature are based on morality and whatever the society view as morally upright becomes the law of the people. In a state of war the only laws which apply are the three laws of nature. Individuals act in the manner which they believe they are obliged to act. The sovereign leaders in a certain state choose over right and wrong and whatever they choose to become the obligation of their subjects. The law practiced by the people must be physically possible and morally upright. The behavior of the people is influenced by emotion such as fear during the state of war. Without a civil society what is defined as morally right and physically compelled has no clear distinction.
According to Cudworth, Hobbes social contract law on what is justifiable in the society is misleading. Cudworth has opinions which are an obvious contrast from the ideologies shared by Hobbes. Cudworth is the take that just and unjust are defined by factors which go beyond will power. Nature is an important component when coming up with what the society defines as just or otherwise. Cudworth also argues that where there is justice, there must be an injustice (Cudworth and Hutton 106). Hobbes argued that in a state of war everything is just and right. There must be a point of reference when describing aspects such as just and unjust, right and wrong and evil from good. One cannot exist without the other. While the law of nature is used on many occasions as the source of law, the law of nature cannot be used to govern the people without intervention from institutions in the society which help in maintaining order. I think that a lot of evil would arise from the law of nature. The law of nature is dependent on natural aspects of life such as emotion. Nature can easily influence emotions such as anger and revenge. If the law of nature is allowed to prevail, a lot of evil will dominate our current society. One manifestation of the law of nature is through mob justice. The masses are likely to take the law into their hands. Without institutions in the society to maintain order, the society will be lost. The law of the government is more powerful than the law of nature. The government makes decisions and the law after contemplating what is just or otherwise.
According to Cudworth, the law of nature dominates over the law of governments . However, this statement raises concerns since states come up with new laws each day. The law which has been passed by the government becomes the obligation of the citizens who are governed by the rule in question. The concern with the argument is the possibly that a government can pass an illegal act and turn into law, which will then become the obligation of the citizens. I strongly believe that the oaths oblige the government and those in power they take before they take office to act in a particular manner. Their obligation to the society is evident just as the people have a moral obligation to abide by the law. A single individual does not fully denominate the people. The decisions and laws which are passed by those in power have to be passed by others in the government who act as the representatives of the rest of the citizens. The law of the government does not give a single government the power to choose for themselves. The people play a major role in the type of leadership which is in charge of them. Elections are held in most countries to determine the best candidate for the role of leading the people. This system ensures that the entire society is responsible for the type of law which is passed by their government. If the people elect bad leaders and these leaders enact illegal laws, the citizens are to blame as much as the sovereign power which passes illegal laws.
The idea that one individual can have enough power to define what is just does not settle very well with Cudworth. The fact that citizens are bound to oblige by whatever the government sees right is misleading. I believe that most governments are not made of a single individual. Most states have democratic governments. This sort of government is perceived as a government by the people for the people and of the people. Leaders are chosen from the members of the society who are part of them. Ideally in most countries, leaders are elected locally, and it is unheard of that a leader to a certain country will be elected from a different society, state or country. These leaders do not crown themselves with power but are instead chosen by their people through ballots and elections. The people choose the leaders whom they fail to have their best interests at heart. I believe that sovereign powers are elected by the people. Their owners are limited since they cannot proclaim themselves as leaders without the consent of the people. According to Cudworth, the laws of nature and God are absolute . I fail to agree with Cudworth since matters concerning God have become controversial over the years with various studies being conducted to understand God in what is known as theological studies. Most matters concerning God are personal and different groups fail to come to a consensus concerning such matters. No single man can claim to have a complete understanding of the will of God.
Covenants and promises are agreements which bind the two parties which involve themselves in the preparation of the covenant and promises. The sovereign rule is a deal that is taken by the people and binds the citizens to abide by the law of the sovereign power in their country. What makes parties feel obliged to honor covenants and promises is a topic of discussion. According to the social contract theory by Hobbes, people agree to sovereign power and these sovereign powers have enough power to command the people, and whatever the sovereign commands becomes the law . The sovereign and the people are both bound by the covenants and promises, morally and legally. Covenants and promises are followed by certain consequences if the demands of the covenant or promises are adhered to. For instance, if leaders fail to honor their promises with good leadership, it is unlikely that they will be reelected into office during the next election. The citizens are well aware of the consequences they are likely to face if they fail to choose the right leaders to lead them. Citizens will be forced to come up with strategies to get themselves the best leaders. When citizens elect bad leaders, they are forced to suffer the consequences. Such leaders are likely to come up with the law which is oppressing to the citizens. For covenants and promises to work effectively, both parties must understand their role in the enactment of the covenant and ensure that they play their respective roles.
While God’s law is absolute, it is impossible for a single individual to claim that they have a full understanding of the will of God . There should be a very clear distinction between what individuals are likely to term as just and that which is unjust in the society. The possibility that there are blurred lines is almost destructive to the state of order in the society. God in his capacity as the ability to ruin mankind. I believe God gave man the ability to think for himself so that he can make the right choices concerning matters of what is just and that which is unjust.
In conclusion, the society needs a state of order which is made possible with institutions in the society such as governments, and the society cannot merely rely on the law of nature to govern it. The law of nature which is advocated by both Hobbes and Cudworth is heavily based on religion. The law of God is considered absolute for most individuals. However, religion is a personal concept, and each person has a unique relationship with God. It is impossible for any individual to claim that they have a clear understanding of what God considers right and wrong. The sovereign body governs sovereign states, and only those states which are at war can refer to the law of nature for governance. I firmly believe that mankind has an innate desire to be good, and God gave mankind the wisdom to make their own decisions. Humanity cannot rely on God’s law to govern masses; it is upon mankind to define and discern right over wrong.
Works Cited
Cudworth, Ralph and Sarah Hutton. A treatise concerning eternal and immutable morality : with, A treatise of freewill. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Print.
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan . 1980. Print.
