Introduction
Under the social contract theories of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, it was stated that initially a human being lived in the society without any government and there was no law to control his actions. As a result, various unions were formed to secure and defend individual’s rights, since lack of government and laws resulted in injustice and problems within the society. These unions aimed to protect individual’s life and property, and to make sure that his rights are not being violated. The authority or the government was formed under the unity called Pactum unionist and subjections respectively.
Should the government provide security by overcoming the selfish desires of the individual citizen, or should citizens cooperate voluntarily in service of the general welfare of all?
Government can be defined as a very powerful establishment within the society with a lot of duties and its main goal is to coordinate the judicial system based on superlative justice. That is why the government should protect the society from insecurity, in our case it will be the unwillingness of car drivers to wear seat belts and that is why it is necessary to overcome the selfish desires of car drivers. Nevertheless, the government should allow its citizens their personal space and freedom. The essential aim of the government is to make sure that every citizen is secured even in their own cars. Moreover, it is important to maintain the situation when all the laws exist and are being followed by the citizens.
What justifies the imposition of governmental authority on individual citizens?
Most governments accept more prominent political authority on the society and it is all the more simple to shape the terms of open talk drawing more desires and levels of trust past those suitable to great administration. Different government practice far reaching powers on littler establishments of the civil society checking if the citizens debilitate the democracy within the society. The authority of the government is defended by the residents complying with the standards and acting as per the regulations of the government (Jackson and Gau, 2016).The governments have excellencies including the propensities and abilities forced on the subjects to empower them upgrade the advancement.
Are individuals always obligated to obey the dictates of their government?
Citizens are committed to comply with the dictates of their government, since most of these dictates, like the requirement to wear seat belts were implemented to protect citizens. In the meantime, the government must utilize pressure on the citizens in case they abuse the law and regulations. Government has different foundations starting and managing the issues of political commitments. The commitments give the legislatures the privilege to pressure individuals in a way that the people alone can't and in which the citizens are committed to comply with the law. Now and again it proposed not being moral commitment to comply with the law and regulations in light of the fact that these laws and regulations are made by an individual to impact the lives of other individuals. So it appears as one man’s opinion and laws are utilized to control and protect the lives of the others. One may contend that one has an ethical commitment not to mischief kindred people (Braman, 2016).
Which elements of the traditional theories are relevant to this case?
There are different elements of the traditional theories which are pertinent to the above case about the requirement of some states to wear seat belts identified with each standard of human philosophy. These elements incorporate the analytical jurisprudence giving the records of what separates law as an arrangement of standards from other arrangement of standards. Other theories include the theory of natural law which required for the connection between the concepts of law and morality inside the general public. Since the requirement to wear seat belts is a law and in the meantime, it is individual’s personal decision whether to wear a seat belt for his or her own safety or not.
Is it unethical for individual citizens to ignore this governmental requirement?
Different human rights exist within the society controlling and securing singular interests of everyone within the society. Every single government must guarantee the prosperity of its residents by advancing justice and security. It is unethical for drivers to ignore the requirement to wear seat, since its main goal is to protect individuals. Residents have the rights to fight for what they feel is correct and suites them under the constitution. It is up to the government to intercede and amend the stipulated grievances by the nationals for the security and safeness of the nation (Tsesis, 2016). I propose that it will not be untrustworthy to be against the forced solid government rules against the society.
Apply other conceptions of the basis for social and political order.
There are different political conceptions relating to social and political order. For example, the political conception of justice indicating the thought of the reasonable citizens suggested by Rawls. His political conception proposes that citizens are sensible when seeing each other as free and equivalent in an arrangement of cooperation over generations. They are set up to obey different reasonable terms of social collaboration, social control and consenting to follow up on the terms. For the terms to be sensible and reasonable the individual who offers them must think sensibly to acknowledge them.
Conclusion
Therefore, it is important to understand that the main goal of the government is to take all the necessary actions to secure lives of the citizens even when it comes to telling individuals what to do in their own cars. In order to protect citizens, the government should implement certain laws and regulations, and in many cases, these laws and regulations overcome the selfish desires of other citizens.
References
Braman, E. (2016). Exploring Citizen Assessments of Unilateral Executive Authority. Law & Society Review, 50(1), 189-223.
Jackson, J., & Gau, J. M. (2016). Carving up concepts? Differentiating between trust and legitimacy in public attitudes towards legal authority. InInterdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust (pp. 49-69). Springer International Publishing.
Tsesis, A. (2016). Multifactoral Free Speech. Northwestern University Law Review, 110.
