




































AQUINNO VOLUME 4 ISSUE 2 JUNE 2024.cdr


NAVIGATING THE COMPLEXITIES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY 
AND THE SECURITY NEEDS OF THE STATE

Fasiku, Gbenga Cornelius, PhD
Department of Philosophy,

Prince AbubakarAudu University, Anyigba. 
gbenga.fc@ksu.edu.ng
Tel:+2348169448844

&
Okwute, Dorcas

Department of Philosophy,
Prince AbubakarAudu University, Anyigba.

Attahdorcas14@gmail.com
Tel:+2347030948827

Abstract:

The ethical scope surrounding the relationship between individual liberty and the security need of 
the state is complex. Fundamental to this ethical discourse on individual liberty and state security 
need is the principle of human dignity. Liberty is fundamental to human dignity as it entails the 
essential rights of individuals to make choices about their lives, to express themselves freely and 
pursue their own happiness, in ways they deem necessary; the security need of the state is equally 
compelling as it stems from the primary obligation of the state to protect not just the territorial 
integrity of the state but also the well-being, safety and rights of its citizens. Thus, the challenge 
lies in harmonizing these two moral imperatives. While liberty is the foundation of personal 
agency and self-determination, security is indispensable for creating an enabling environment in 
which individuals can exercise their liberties without fear or unwarranted constriction. This paper 
therefore, argues that achieving this balance requires a careful consideration of the ethical 
principles that underpin both imperatives. Adopting a critical method, this paper concludes that 
this foundational moral imperative acknowledges the intrinsic worth of every individual and 
requires that security measures respect and protect the dignity of each person. It further argues 
that modern democracies strive to strike a dynamic equilibrium that adapts to these changing 
circumstances of technological advancements, and the ethical dilemmas that come with them. In 
the end, the trade-off remains an enduring and complex challenge in the realms of politics, ethics, 
and governance. 

Keywords: Liberty, State-Security, Accountability, Individuality, Common Good.

Preamble 

In recent years, the debate over the trade-off between individual liberty and state security need 
has been intensified as a result of the growing global threats from terrorism and misapplication of 
individual liberty, which has prompted governments to justify the inevitability of more extensive 
security measures, such infringement on human rights through surveillance programs, access to 
personal and private data and restrictions on human freedoms.  These debates have ignited ethical 
discussions questioning government's interference on individual liberty and as such, finding 
equilibrium between individual liberty and the state security need has become a complex subject 
at the heart of ethics, political philosophy and governance with societies determinedly struggling 

139

mailto:gbenga.fc@ksu.edu.ng
mailto:gbenga.fc@ksu.edu.ng
mailto:gbenga.fc@ksu.edu.ng
mailto:gbenga.fc@ksu.edu.ng
Tel:+2348169448844
Tel:+2348169448844
mailto:Attahdorcas14@gmail.com
mailto:Attahdorcas14@gmail.com
Tel:+2347030948827


with the need to safeguard their citizens' right to freedom on the one hand and the need to preserve 
law and order for political stability on the other hand. 

“Security is a slippery term” (McSweeney, 1999:199), this is because; its meaning is socially 
dependent, but in considering the present-day global security drift, it is perhaps pertinent to 
expand the definition (and what it entails) to go beyond the traditional notion of security to a more 
comprehensive and all-encompassing definition i.e. incorporating the individual, the state and 
global protection from and resilience against potential harm and/or any infringement on 
individual liberty and state territorial sovereignty. At the individual level, it is the protection 
against any possible infringement on one's liberty. As such, the individual is the principal 
beneficiary of state security and this is where the friction lies; does the state have the power to 
restrict or deny the individual of his right or liberty for security reasons in which he is the primary 
beneficiary?

This friction often presents an ethical dilemma that demands careful and critical exploration. This 
is because from historical antecedence, governments have frequently taken measures by enacting 
laws in the name of security, which in turn often overstep and violate individual liberty. These 
measures range from surveillance and data collection to restrictions on speech, movement 
assembly and privacy in an effort to accomplish maximum security. On the other hand, 
individuals treasure their liberty, the right to privacy and confidentiality and the autonomy to 
make choices without unjustifiable meddling and interference. This is why the debate remains 
perennial thereby raising critical questions about ethics, morality, and the role of the state in our 
lives. Nevertheless, the pursuit for individual liberty has always coexisted with the need for state 
security as the state is charged with the onerous task to protect her citizen from both external 
threats and internal disorders and is sometimes obligated also to take measures (sometime harsh 
and drastic) that infringe on individual liberty. Throughout history, governments have engaged in 
surveillance, censorship, restrictions, prohibitions and other security measures in the name of 
safeguarding the common good and maintaining social stability.

In the light of the aforementioned considerations, the tension between these two concomitant 
imperatives has become increasingly prominent in the modern era especially with the 
attractiveness of liberal democracy and its emphasis and objectification of individual liberty and 
freedom. As societies grapple with the challenges of balancing individual rights with collective 
security, this study seeks to explore the moral dimension of this trade-off. By examining the 
historical evolution of this dilemma, analyzing its ethical implications, and considering existing 
justifications, this paper attempts to contribute to the discourse on how societies can traverse this 
complex terrain while upholding their fundamental values and principles.

The Moral Imperative of Liberty and Security

Liberty according to J.S Mill is “lack of interference on individual freedom” (Mill, 1993: 78). 
This Mill's argument is established on the utilitarian assumption that individuals should be free to 
pursue whatever serves their self-interest unhindered but he goes further to state that, “the only 
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community 
against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (78). With this, Mill provides a condition for which 
the government can infringe or interfere on individual liberty. He argues that the greatest threat to 
individual liberty is social misuse of liberty which causes political tyranny and instability which 
calls for government interference. Thus, this interplay between liberty and government 
interference becomes a demanding ethical dilemma facing societies today and striking the right 

140

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



balance between individual freedoms and collective safety is not only a legal and political 
challenge, but also a moral one. 

Liberty is a fundamental to human dignity because it entails the essential rights of individuals to 
make choices about their lives, to express themselves freely and pursue their own happiness, in 
ways they deem necessary. This moral imperative of liberty is grounded in the belief that every 
person possesses intrinsic worth and autonomy that should be protected and respected (Oliver, 
2011: 11; Kant, 2009:103). It demands that individuals be accorded the space and freedom to 
develop their identities, pursue their goals, and participate fully in society. Thus, dignity is an 
inherent moral worth which defines humanity and liberty is fundamental to it. This is why; any 
form of interference undermines this dignity as dignity provides sufficient reasons for man to 
exhibit his rational nature. Thus, liberty is morally compelling as it is intricately tied around the 
dignity of the human person to fully exhibit his rational nature by setting ends which is an 
exclusive property of the human person and what distinguishes him from animality (Dean, 2006: 
392)

Liberty is fundamental to an effective democratic society as stated above encompasses a broad 
spectrum of individual rights and freedoms. These rights include freedom of speech, assembly, 
and privacy, among others. They are enshrined in constitutions and legal frameworks to 
safeguard citizens from undue interference by the state. Thus, liberty objectifies autonomy, self-
determination and the pursuit of happiness, acknowledging that individuals have inherent worth 
and the right to make choices that governs their lives (Dryzek, 2002: 25).

Similarly, the moral imperative of the security need of the state is equally compelling. It stems 
from the responsibility of the state to defend not just the territorial integrity of the state but also the 
well-being, safety, and rights of their citizens. Security is not merely a matter of physical safety, 
but also encompasses the assurance of economic stability and social order. This imperative 
recognizes that individuals are entitled to live free from fear, violence, and undue harm and that it 
is the responsibility of the state to provide this (Gutmann, 2004: 457). Thus, the challenge lies in 
harmonizing these two moral imperatives. While liberty is the foundation of personal agency and 
self-determination, security is indispensable for creating an enabling environment in which 
individuals can exercise their liberties without fear or unwarranted constriction. Achieving this 
balance requires careful consideration of the ethical principles that underpin both imperatives.

The Moral Dilemma of Liberty and Security

Throughout history, the pendulum of power has swung between individual liberties and state 
authority. Ancient civilizations, monarchies, and totalitarian regimes often prioritized the 
interests of the state over individual rights. In contrast, the Enlightenment era and the birth of 
democratic ideals championed individual freedoms as a safeguard against tyranny. Recognizing 
this historical framework is necessary in understanding the ethical dilemma involved in liberty 
and security trade-off (Freeman, 2011: 487). As observed by Rafael and Prados, individuality 
increases freedom but does so at the expense of a sense of community, (Rafeal and Prados, 
2022:8). While some are of the view that individual liberty (with all it entails) should have 
preeminence over state security as a way to safeguard against totalitarianism, tyranny and misuse 
of state powers against the people, others maintain opposing views by drawing arguments heavily 
from evidences of abuse of liberty and what appears to be increased insecurity but as complex and 
tricky as this debate may appear, the most perturbing task is to make a choice in a period of 
increased anxiety and heightened  insecurity like this, whether we prefer being secured to 

141

Fasiku                           Navigating The Complexities Of Individual Liberty and The Security...



maintaining our liberty 

Moral philosophy plays a substantial role in shaping our understanding of this balance between 
individual liberty and security trade-off. Thinkers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and 
Immanuel Kant provided foundational principles for evaluating the relationship between 
individual liberty and state security. Locke's concept of the social contract emphasizes the 
protection of natural rights, including life, liberty, and property, as a central duty of the state 
(Locke, 1988:138).This is because for him, all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born 
with certain “inalienable” natural rights and which provides a rational basis not only for 
promotion of individual rights but also the duty of the state to secure those rights. Thus, in Locke's 
notion of freedom, individual liberty impacts the security needs of the state. Locke argues that 
individuals have a natural right to freedom, even though Locke recognizes that in the state of 
nature, where there is no government to protect these rights, individuals may infringe upon each 
other's rights and create a state of insecurity and to address this, Locke advocates for the 
establishment of a social contract and the formation of a government. This government's primary 
role is to protect individual's natural rights including their freedom by enforcing law and 
maintaining order. However, Locke believes that the government's power should be limited and 
should only extend to protecting these rights. Therefore, in Locke's philosophy freedom is 
essential but it must be balanced with the need for security provided by the state. The state's 
security needs involve ensuring that individual freedoms are protected from external threats as 
well as from internal conflicts and violation of rights by others.

Rousseau notion of liberty particularly in his work The Social Contract, explores the idea of the 
general will of the collective will, highlighting the importance of collective decision-making that 
respects individual liberty. As such, true freedom could only be achieved when individuals 
participate in creating the laws and regulations that govern society, thereby ensuring that they are 
governed by rules they have consented to (Rousseau, 1968: 118). Thus, Rousseau emphasizes the 
importance of the state and the collective good over individual right and liberty, viewing liberty as 
being achieved through active participation in the political process. In Rousseau's notion of the 
social contract, the government's role impacts individual liberty. Rousseau believes that 
individual should enter into a social contract, forming a collective politics or community. This 
community would then establish a government to represent the general will and enact laws that 
promote the common good. However, the government's role is to enforce the general will of the 
people, which represent the common interests and desires of the entire community. Rousseau 
emphasizes that the government should not merely enforce the will of the majority but should 
instead strive to discern and enact what is truly in the best interest of the community as a whole. 
Therefore, while Rousseau values individual liberty, he also believes that the individual must be 
willing to submit to the authority of the general will, as represented by the government. In this 
sense, the government's interference is not seen as a limitation on individual liberty but rather as 
an expression of collective freedom, where individuals participate in shaping the laws that govern 
them. It is essential however to note that Rousseau's concept of the general will can be 
controversial, as it can potentially lead to the suppression of both the individual and minority 
rights in favour of the majority. Even though Locke and Rousseau value freedom, Locke 
emphasizes individual rights and limits government interference, thus, it is more individualistic 
as it focuses on the right and freedoms of the individuals within the society, on the hand, Rousseau 
emphasizes collective freedom and the importance of the state in determining the laws that 
regulate activities of the individual. 

Kant's categorical imperative underscores the principle that individuals should be treated as ends 
in themselves, not as means to an end, which resonates strongly with the protection of individual 

142

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



dignity. Kant's notion of freedom and the security needs of the state are intertwined within his 
broader ethical and political philosophy. Kant's understanding of freedom is deeply rooted in his 
concept of autonomy and moral agency. Kant emphasizes autonomy and moral agency and sees 
the state as having a crucial role in protecting individual freedom by providing security within the 
framework of a just and law-governed society. However, Kant also stresses the importance of 
limiting state power to prevent it from infringing upon individual rights and autonomy

Kant defines freedom as autonomy, as the ability to act according to principles that one gives to 
oneself, rather than being subject to external coercion or merely following inclinations (Kant, 
2009: 105). For Kant, true freedom is the ability to act in accordance with rational principles and 
moral laws. Kant also believes that the state has a crucial role in protecting individual freedom. 
He argues that the state should establish and enforce laws that uphold the freedom and autonomy 
of its citizens. This includes laws that protect individuals from external threats to their freedom, 
such as aggression or coercion from other individuals or foreign powers.

Kant however recognizes that security is essential for individuals to exercise their freedom 
effectively. In his work Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, Kant argues that a just state 
should ensure the security of its citizens through measures such as a system of laws, a judiciary, 
and, in some cases, a military for defense against external threats (Kant, 1997: 16). By providing 
security, the state creates the necessary conditions for individuals to pursue their own goals and 
moral autonomy without fear of harm or interference. While Kant sees the state as necessary for 
protecting freedom and security, he also emphasizes the importance of limiting state power. He 
argues for the rule of law and constitutional government, where political authority is constrained 
by principles of justice and individual rights. Kant believes that a just state should respect the 
autonomy of its citizens and not infringe upon their freedom except to the extent necessary for 
ensuring the freedom and security of all. Thus, peace between individuals within a state can only 
be permanently secured by the institution of a republican, so the only guarantee of a permanent 
peace between nations is the establishment of a federation of “Frees”.

Liberty and Security Trade-off

In the modern world, ensuring a balance between individual liberty and security is a complex task 
as it faces so many novel challenges, predominantly in the context of technology, globalization, 
and transnational threats. Issues such as mass surveillance, data privacy, counter terrorism 
measures, and the ethical implications of emerging technologies demand careful consideration. 
The tension between safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring public safety has never been 
more pronounced as we have today (Fukuyama, 2014: 87). Thus, an ethical approach to this 
balance highlights the importance of the principles of proportionality and necessity. These 
principles are crucial in balancing liberty and state security. 

Proportionality as a principle dictates that any limitation on individual liberties by the state for the 
sake of security must be proportional to the threat being addressed. In other words, the measures 
taken should not be more restrictive than is necessary to achieve the intended security objective. 
For example, if the government imposes surveillance measures to combat terrorism, those 
measures should be narrowly tailored to target specific threats and minimize the intrusion on 
individuals' privacy rights. On the other hand, the principle of Necessity requires that any 
restriction on liberty must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim, such as protecting national 
security or public safety. It means that the government should exhaust all less restrictive means 
before resorting to more intrusive measures. For instance, before implementing censorship laws 
to combat hate speech, the government should explore alternative approaches, such as education 
and community outreach, to address the underlying issues. In essence, the principle of 

143

Fasiku                           Navigating The Complexities Of Individual Liberty and The Security...



proportionality ensures that the response to a security threat is commensurate with the level of 
risk posed, while the principle of necessity ensures that only the least restrictive measures are 
employed to achieve the security objective. Upholding these principles helps prevent the 
arbitrary or excessive use of state power and safeguards individual liberties in the face of security 
concerns. Security measures implemented by the state should be proportional to the threat at hand 
and necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. Overreach or disproportionate restrictions on 
individual rights are ethically problematic and may undermine the legitimacy of state actions. 
Accountability and transparency are other twin principles that play critical roles in safeguarding 
individual liberty while addressing the security needs of the state. Holding government 
institutions and officials accountable for their actions is essential for ensuring that they operate 
within the bounds of the law and respect individual rights. When security measures are 
implemented, accountability mechanisms, such as oversight bodies or judicial review, help 
monitor the conduct of security agencies and ensure that they act lawfully and ethically. This 
accountability serves as a check on potential abuses of power and helps maintain public trust in 
the government's ability to balance security with liberty.

Transparency on the other hand involves openness and disclosure of government activities, 
policies, and decision-making processes to the public. When it comes to security measures, 
transparency helps build trust and legitimacy by allowing citizens to understand the rationale 
behind those measures and assess their impact on individual liberties. Transparency also enables 
public scrutiny of security policies and practices, which can help identify and address potential 
abuses or inefficiencies. By promoting transparency, governments can enhance accountability 
and foster a culture of respect for civil liberties while still addressing security concerns 
effectively. Transparency is imperative as it facilitates public participation in the democratic 
process, allowing citizens to engage in debates and decision-making related to security policies. 
When individuals have access to information about government actions and policies, they can 
contribute to discussions about the trade-offs between liberty and security and advocate for 
policies that strike an appropriate balance. Public participation strengthens democracy and helps 
ensure that security measures are aligned with the values and preferences of the population. In 
summary, accountability and transparency serve as foundational principles in the relationship 
between individual liberty and the security needs of the state. By holding government 
accountable for its actions and promoting transparency in decision-making, societies can 
mitigate the risks of excessive state power and protect individual freedoms while still effectively 
addressing security challenges(Gray, 1983: 58)

At the core of the ethical imperative of balancing the dilemma is the recognition of human dignity 
and universal rights. The protection of individual rights is not solely a matter of policy but a moral 
duty. Upholding human dignity means recognizing the intrinsic worth of every individual and 
respecting their autonomy, irrespective of their background or circumstances. Ethical 
considerations in striking a balance between individual rights and state protection also require 
cultural sensitivity and an appreciation of diversity, as cultural sensitivity plays a crucial role in 
navigating this trade-off between state security and individual liberty because it acknowledges 
and respects the diverse cultural perspective and values within the society. Different societies 
may have varying interpretations of what constitutes individual rights, and these perspectives 
should be respected and considered in the policymaking process by incorporating cultural 
considerations into policy making process, societies can achieve a more balanced and inclusive 
approach to the trade-off between liberty and security (Gray, 1983: 58).

144

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792



Conclusion 

The trade-off between individual liberty and state security need is a multifaceted ethical 
dilemma. Philosophical perspectives, ranging from John Locke's emphasis on individual rights to 
Immanuel Kant's primacy of the autonomy of the individual and, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's 
concept of the general will, have all offered distinct insights into this complex issue. 
Nevertheless, the evaluation of this trade-off reveals that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, as 
context, societal norms, and geopolitical factors play significant roles in understanding the 
complexities (Young, 2011: 105). Moreover, the diversity of philosophical viewpoints reflects 
the moral pluralism inherent in this ethical debate, highlighting basically the complexity of 
ethical decision-making in governance. This is why practical application often presents 
challenges, as the effectiveness of state security measures, the potential for abuses of power, and 
the impact on individual liberties may not align neatly with abstract moral ideals of individual 
liberty. Modern democracies strive to strike a dynamic equilibrium that adapts to these changing 
and novel circumstances of technological advancements, and emerging ethical dilemmas that 
come with them. In the end, the trade-off between individual liberty and state security remains an 
enduring and complex challenge in the realms of politics, ethics, and governance. It requires 
continuous reflection, adaptation, and careful consideration of the moral principles that underpin 
our decisions as societies strive to protect both individual freedoms and collective well-being. 

REFERENCES
Armitage, David, and Lloyd, Karen. The Declaration of Independence: A Global History. 

Harvard University Press, 2007.
Beatty, David M. Human Rights and Judicial Review: A Comparative Perspective. Springer, 

2017.
Beitz, Charles R. The Idea of Human Right, Oxford University Press, 2009.
Cranston, Maurice. "What Are Human Rights?" The Journal of Philosophical Studies, vol. 58, 

no. 19, 1961, pp. 577-585.
Curren, Randall. "Rousseau on Civic Education, Religion, and the Vocation of Citizenship," 

Educational Theory, vol. 54, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35-50.
Dryzek, John, S. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations, Oxford 

University Press, 2002.
Dunn, Susan. The Political Thought of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Impossibility of Reason, 

Princeton University Press, 2019.
________ The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the 

'Two Treatises of Government, Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Dean, Richard,  The Value of Humanity in Kant's Moral Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006
Dieter, S. “Kant's Ground-thesis on Dignity and Value in Groundwork” in Journal of Value 

Inquiry, vol. 52(1), 2018, pp.81-85
Dworkin, Ronald. Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press, 2013.
Freeman, Michael. Human Rights: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Polity Press, 2011.
Fukuyama, Francis. Political Order and Political Decay: From the Industrial Revolution to the 

Globalization of Democracy. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2014.
Gray, John. Mill on Liberty: A Defense. Routledge, 1983.
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis F., Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University 

Press, 2004.
Hampton, Jean. "Hobbesian Moral and Political Theory." The Stanford Encyclopedia of 

P h i l o s o p h y  ( S p r i n g  2 0 1 9  E d i t i o n ) ,  E d w a r d  N .  Z a l t a  ( e d . ) ,  

145

Fasiku                           Navigating The Complexities Of Individual Liberty and The Security...



URL=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/hobbes-moral/
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan, edited by Edwin Curley, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
Kant, Immanuel, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Translated by James W. Ellington, 

Hackett Publishing Company, 2009.
____________, The Metaphysics of Morals, Translated by Mary Gregor, Cambridge University 

Press, 1993.
____________,  Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, translated with introduction and note 

by Campbell Smith, London: Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1997.
Locke, John. Two Treatises of Government, Edited by Peter Laslett, Cambridge University Press, 

1988.
McSweeney, B. “Conclusion: Security and Moral Choice” in Security, Identity and Interest, 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty.  Edited by Elizabeth Rapaport, Hackett Publishing Company, 

1978.
__________, Utilitarianism. Edited by George Sher, Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
Morsink, Johannes. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent. 

University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.
Nowak, Manfred, ed. Introduction to the International Human Rights Regime. Brill, 2012.
Nussbaum, Martha C. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Harvard 

University Press, 2006.
Oliver, Sensen, Kant on Human Dignity, Boston: De Grugter Verlag, 2011.
Rafael, G.H &Praedoes, J.S.F., “Security versus Freedom Dilemma; An Empirical Study of the 

Spanish Case” in  Sociological Theory, vol. 7(1), 2022
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1999.
Riley, Jonathan. Mill's On Liberty: A Reader's Guide. Continuum, 2007.
Ripstein, Arthur. Force and Freedom: Kant's Legal and Political Philosophy. Harvard University 

Press, 2009.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Edited by Maurice Cranston, Penguin Classics, 

1968.
________________. Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men. Edited by 

Victor Gourevitch, Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.
Sen, Amartya. The Idea of Justice. Belknap Press, 2010.
Simmons, A. John. The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton University Press, 1992.
Sullivan, Roger J. An Introduction to Kant's Ethics. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Skinner, Quentin. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, 

1978.
Sorell, Tom. “Hobbes's Moral and Political Philosophy” in The Oxford Handbook of Hobbes, 

Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 187-204.
Stone Sweet, Alec. The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford University Press, 2004.
Tilly, Charles. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992. Blackwell, 1992.
Wood, Allen W. "Kantian Ethics." Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Warren, Mark E. "Democratic Theory and Trust." In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, 

edited by Robert E. Goodin, et al., Oxford University Press, 2009
Young, Iris Marion. Inclusion and Democracy.  Oxford University Press, 2000.
_____________. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, 2011.

146

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 4 Issue 2, June 2024.
ISSN: 2786-9792

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/hobbes-moral/

	Page 147
	Page 148
	Page 149
	Page 150
	Page 151
	Page 152
	Page 153
	Page 154

