Lv 5
? asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 9 years ago

Historical evidence that humans need laws and societal restrictions?

I'm writing a paper about JS Mill's view that full individual liberty is needed in order for human development and society to progress. He assumes that, if society does not punish behavior, man will make the best decisions for himself. Similarly Immanuel Kant said during the Enlightenment that one is not truly enlightened until they have full human autonomy with no law. My argument is that man in his natural form is not inherently good and that while liberty and autonomy are necessities to progression, FULL liberty and autonomy would only hurt society.

So, in short, what are some HISTORICAL examples of societal restrictions and laws being necessary? From about 1500-1850 is the time period I'm looking at. I'm having trouble finding historical information to include in my argument, but it's required for the paper. I'm just looking for ideas, not for someone to write the paper for me.

5 Answers

  • Thomas
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    When a child of 3 years of age is throwing a log of wood at your head and you say: "Don't do that because it hurts" you have created a "law", a true restriction of the freedom of the child. However this law benefits to your individual freedom to enjoy good health and a life free of pain. Starting fro 2 persons sharing any common environment some rules must protect each member from harmful activities of the other. If those are not communicated, the one partner which is harming the other even is not to be blamed for the attacks. If communicated and the attacker decides to keep the limit, he has created a rule for himself, which also is "law", the law set by own conscience. For teaching rules or implementing laws positive or negative "enforcement" is the tool in all living beings which havie any social interactions. There is no way around it. No general rule exists how enforcement has to look like, however it always willl exist. "Enforcement" by no way means "punishment" or harsh treatment. It is the setting of limits by communcating "good" and "bad", positively enforcing "good", negatively enforcing "bad".

    The proof is that the authors above were able to publish their theories..For publishing a book many people have to respect a number of rules. Writing legible words using a consented system of calligraphy, called "alphabet" and to write in a common interaction mode called "language" already contains at least 3 laws. The philosophers above made their living by the fact that others and they themselves respected those laws. What other proof is necessary?

  • 4 years ago

    The ancients have been extremely plenty uniformly a team of superstitious warmongering elitist xenophobic misogynist bastards by potential of our standards, so this is style of stressful to work out. i visit assert the Romans. they could have been extremely reliable at working the international, definitely greater helpful than the european colonial powers have been. They have been very helpful directors, they have been reliable at assimilating foreign places peoples, and that they have been extremely tolerant, devoid of any of the religious fundamentalism that got here to characterise eu and center eastern theory in later eras. they does not have grew to become the international into the steaming mess that we did. on the different hand they have been racist autocratic imperialists, and that they are going to stay that way except per hazard there is an experience that parallels the Enlightenment faster or later, it somewhat is by potential of no potential particular. yet a minimum of it may happen, through fact they did have the Greek custom of man or woman liberty, it somewhat is greater helpful than you will get out of any non-eu civilization (no offense to non-Europeans, yet each and every of the belief of democracy did come from Greece). Like maximum historic civilizations additionally they did no longer somewhat have the nicely suited attitude to kick off a technological revolution. They have been conservative and that they have been somewhat greater helpful at co-opting the achievements of others (quite often the Greeks). they could no longer have had an business revolution. yet it somewhat is a threat you run letting maximum historic civilizations strengthen into dominant fairly of the West.

  • te144
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Salem witch hunts. Wild West lynchings w/o trials.

  • Hi
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    You at very least need rules. Too much freedom would be anarchy. Even fish swim in organised schools. (Don't ask me who organises them.)

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    articles of confederation...and jersey shore

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.