Comparative Questions

1490 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Political institution of Hobbes

1. How do the political theories of Locke, Hobbes, and Bossuet, as presented in this chapter, deal with the question of human frailties? How does the element of fallibility strengthen or weaken their arguments?
The political theory of Hobbes explains the nature of the state and how it is important. Locke’s theory is a view of government and the connection to human nature. Bossuet believed in French absolutism, specifically the divine right of kings. Bossuet deals with human frailty by providing proof from the Bible. He argues that king’s authority came from God and anyone who challenges it is wrong. He first states that God gave people a ruler. Then continues to say that people cannot misuse someone who is appointed sacred. He does admit that Kings should not use their power for pleasure, but have power that is restrained to be fair yet feared since the power was given by God. During this time, people looked up to the bible if people were in need or if they needed to strengthen faith. The Bible was a book that told people how to show faith and live life with morals that were good. This theory strengthens Bossuet’s argument because while he is trying to convince people to follow his French absolutism, he uses such a strong influence that people respected and wanted to improve in because they may be frail spiritually.
John Locke believed humans were granted reason and tolerance by nature. He starts with saying that someone has a right. And with reason, they can come up with an idea of future dangers associated to the common idea of something being right or wrong. Some people however may have frail reasoning skills. A person should do to others as they want to be treated because of having authority and having equality. Controversie...

... middle of paper ...

...elieves people should give up all their rights to the government. Even though the peasants that rebel is looked down upon, he could say that the government was trying to save reputation after the people in the rebellion were causing war. Depending on hierarchy that a person is part of or is not part of, the Lords were enemies to the uprising common people because the government was requiring things by force. Government force as in the way Catherine was using it would be advised to keep practicing by Bossuet and Hobbes because they believe in authority ran by the government. Bossuet would express divine right and that anyone who opposes Catherine would be wrong. Natural law needed to be practiced in society would be pushed in government, but limited to peasants by Hobbes while Locke would try to convince Catherine that the people needed to express the natural rights.

Show More
Related

  • Enlightenment DBQ

    1096 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke strongly believed in more rights for the people and was against oppression. In his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke stated, “(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions. . .” (Document A). Locke means every man is naturally equal, no one was created better and he has certain guaranteed rights. This helps society because it would deny a monarch to strip a person of their guaranteed rights and it would make the monarch less powerful and his/her power would be given to the people.

    Read More

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.

    Read More

  • The Enlightenment and the Declaration of Independence

    415 Words  | 1 Pages

    John Locke was an English philosopher who lived during 1632-1704. In political theory he was equally influential. Contradicting Hobbes, Locke maintained that the original state of nature was happy and characterized by reason and tolerance; all human beings were equal and free to pursue "life, health, liberty, and possessions." The state formed by the social contract was guided by the natural law, which guaranteed those inalienable rights. He set down the policy of checks and balances later followed in the U.S. Constitution; formulated the doctrine that revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation; and argued for broad religious freedom.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast The Glorious Revolution And American Revolution

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    Locke used the arguments that a government is nothing if it is not supported by the power of its citizens. He argued that the citizens of the government were not well represented in the government so it was justified to be overthrown. This is what he thought about the overthrowing of King James of England in 1688. Locke argued that if the people in a country were to dissolve then the government in that country will also dissolve. He saw a country as a big group of people with similar views. He talks about how society decides to act as a whole group. When they split apart is when society becomes different groups and the government then falls. Many colonists were from England and witnessed or knew about the Glorious revolution and felt like they were mistreated the same way the people of England did at that time. Locke’s ideas played a major role in influencing the colonists to realize they were not being treated fairly and they had a right to fight for freedom to create their own

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.

    Read More

  • John Locke's Second Treatise, Of Civil Government

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Locke: The Power Debate

    1209 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.

    Read More

  • John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract

    1125 Words  | 3 Pages

    What John Locke was concerned about was the lack of limitations on the sovereign authority. During Locke’s time the world was surrounded by the monarch’s constitutional violations of liberty toward the end of the seventeenth century. He believed that people in their natural state enjoy certain natural, inalienable rights, particularly those to life, liberty and property. Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The...

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.

    Read More

  • Locke, Hobbes, Mill, Thoreau

    1432 Words  | 3 Pages

    Locke states that in order for a civil society to be established, the individuals must forfeit some of their rights that they have in the state of nature. This needs to be done so everyone can live together in peace.

    Read More

  • Political Science Final Exam

    758 Words  | 2 Pages

    Locke believes that state of nature is pre-political but at the same time it is not pre-moral. He believes that everyone i...

    Read More

  • Hobbes and Rousseau, The State of Nature

    1256 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes’s initial argument of natural state, in human nature, proves how society is in a constant state of destruction, mentally and physically, if not under control or command. Although Hobbes’s opinion was morally correct, Rousseau believes that all people are born in a state of emptiness, somewhat of a blank state, and it is life experiences that determine their nature, society being a major driving force for people’s ill-will and lack of moral sensibilities. Hobbes, overall, is proven correct because all people need to be directed in order for society to properly function. Hobbes’ theory on the condition of the state of nature, and government are not only more applicable today, but his reasoning is far sounder than that of Rousseau. These concepts were significantly conditionally reliant.

    Read More

  • Hobbes's Theory Of Political Nature And The Theories Of Human Nature

    1286 Words  | 3 Pages

    In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.

    Read More

  • Comparing Thomas Hobbes And Locke's Theory Of Government

    1460 Words  | 3 Pages

    Hobbes and Locke’s Ideas of government reflects subjects that have been put in place, rejected many times, or are still in consideration. The idea to allow the government to have access to our text messages, our emails, and our phone calls to prevent crime and terrorism would be an example of Hobbes idea of government as having an absolute ruler with unlimited power would do whatever is necessary to prevent chaos. But in todays society Locke’s idea of government has been favored as the government would only be able to do that with a warrant and reason for the warrant, to protect our natural rights. Locke’s idea of government reflects our police department regulations also; to protect our natural rights police have limited power, as they cannot do whatever they feel necessary to prevent crime. But if the police department was reflected by Hobbes idea of government the police could do whatever they felt necessary, which in today’s society could actually cause more chaos, then prevent

    Read More

More about Comparative Questions

Open Document