I will argue against hart’s belief that not all laws are backed by threats. Instead I will explain how it is that all laws directly or obliquely are motivated by threats and coercion is a necessary condition for laws and orders to be followed.
In Hart’s book the concept of law, Hart explains his belief that not all laws are followed because of the fear of punishment, instead he challenges this belief by scrutinizing various other types of laws and there functions. Hart argues that to describe all laws as coercive orders is to mischaracterize the purpose and function of some laws and is to misunderstand their content, mode of origin, and range of application. Early in the book Hart tries to step aside from criminal law where this rule is generally right, when applied. Instead Hart uses laws such as contract laws and empowerment laws which regularly enable and allow people to carry out authoritative acts such as the making of wills or contracts which have legal effect. Hart also used contract law which specifies how contracts are to be arranged and how official documents are to be created. other laws that Hart uses in his argument specify how legislatures are to be assembled and how courts are to function. They specify how new laws are to be enacted and how old laws are to be changed. All of these laws were used by Hart to argue that not all laws are motivated by threats, and I will used the same to disagree with Hart.
I believe that in general every individuals’ life is driven by one common universal motive, which is happiness and the avoidance of conflict. In order for us to obtain that desired happiness individuals have set up various system of rules and laws, enforced through a set of institutions in the hope that by structuring our lifes and socity we may achieve this state of happiness. I also believe that law is an instrument to support t civil obedience. I believe that by anyone refusing to comply with rules or laws they are in preventing us from...