[BearsysRevenge]

1.) Hobbes wrote that "during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man". In the state of nature every man has the inherent right to do anything necessary to preserve his own liberty or safety, and that life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He believed that in the international arena, states behave as individuals do in a state of nature. Hobbes believed that within the state of nature there can be no injustice, because there are no laws, other than certain natural precepts, the the most important being "that every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it"; and the second natural precept is "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defense of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself". From these two concepts, Hobbes claims, that the way out of the state of nature and into a system of government by mutual contract.



3.) There are many reasons the justify continuing, or even increasing, the separation of church from state. The three foremost reasons would be the amount of religions in the world, personal freedoms and to prevent small groups from taking power in the government. The proponents of separation of church and state recognize the fact that one group of individuals must not have absolute power. If they were to, they would more than likely not hold the views that the entire country holds. Also, it is important to not recognize one religion as the main religion, as that decreases validity of all other religions, and in a country where individual freedom of religion is standard this is important. Also, it is important to realize that religions have a set of rules that may go against how other people choose to live their lives. For example, gay marriage is an inherent right that should be recognized by all countries, but religious groups fight against it all the time, and pushing their agenda on other people is just wrong. In conclusion, the more we allow religions to have control in governments, the less freedoms we will have.



4.) According to Martin Luther King, "A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." The four requirements that a law must meet to be considered are as follows, A law that is imminent in nature is a moral law, such as the right to ones own life, a person can not kill another without breaking this natural law. It is also said that just laws are immanent in nature. That is, they can be "discovered" or "found" but not "created" by such things as a bill of rights. Just laws are also ones that can emerge by the natural process of resolving conflicts, as shown by the evolutionary process of the common law and the final That the meaning of law is such that its content cannot be determined except by reference to moral principles. These meanings can either oppose or complement each other, although they share the common trait that they rely on natural inherence as opposed to design in accepting something as a just law.



5.) Racial profiling is another act that can be justified under the basis of Utilitarian principal. The justification of such could be that although the minority groups(Afro-Americans or Arabs, for example) are put off by such blatant forms of racism, the majority group(Caucasians, in most instances) are happier knowing that these people are being stopped and searched/questioned. They don't care for the individual rights of the person, only the greater good. And if sterotyping a different race is what appeases the majority, then it if just and right. This is however, a blatantly wrong philosophy, never is racism justified. A person is not to be, as stated by Dr. Martin Luther King, judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Racial profiling is in direct discord of such sentiments. A sentiment that we, who are only one race -the human race, should live by.



6.) Under the Utilitarian principal, a government could restrict rights of minorities, especially if they cause mental "distress" to the majority, as some opponents of alternative lifestyles claim. The objective of a Utilitarian government is for the majority of the population to be happy, and if that means stepping on the toes of the few that live differently then they are fine with such a law. Utilitarianism holds that in any given situation the 'right' act is that which produced the greatest good, while all other acts are wrong. As I stated before, the Utilitarian government is wrong, on a moral basis. They have no right to revoke a person's natural right just because it makes another person queasy. If one person's lifestyle has no direct effect on another person, the government has absolutely no moral right to ban or restrict such a lifestyle choice.