The Enlightenments Effects on the age of Absolutism The Age of Absolutism began in the seventeenth century and ended around the eighteenth century. Absolutism is described as a way of ruling with centralized authority and power, absolute monarchies were usually ruled by a single leader, such as a Monarch or Dictator. Ideas about government and politics, from enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Charles Montesquieu, is what began to challenge this age. Absolutism was a severely flawed government system with limited rights being given, this resulted in individuals looking for new government systems as a result of these flaws. In an Absolute Monarchy government individuals had limited freedoms, little to no equal rights, and all decisions …show more content…
Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke and Charles Montesquieu, are who advocated for the freedom and equal rights for individuals. More specifically, the enlightenment thinker John Locke believed that individuals should be independent and free. Furthermore, he strongly believed in the protection of individuals natural rights. In John Locke's Two Treatises on Government he discusses how he believes in, “Men being . . . by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be . . . subjected to the political power of another without his own consent . . . . To protect natural rights governments are established,”. When John Locke is describing this in his essay he is expressing how he believes men being free and independent, and how individuals should not be ruled without their consent. This document is extremely relevant to this topic for several reasons. This document is extremely relevant due to the …show more content…
There were several flaws in an Absolutism government. These flaws include that monarchs believed that they were above everyone else, and that kings were harsh. In Machiavelli's The Prince he describes that, “Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared, for love is held by a bond of obligation which, as men are wicked, is broken whenever personal advantage suggests it,”. In this excerpt from his writing, Machiavelli is describing that a ruler has to be tough and mean and not nice, in order to be a good ruler. Rulers being tough in cruel was just one of the major flaws of absolutism, that drove individuals away from absolute monarchy governments. Furthermore, in Monarchies individuals were not given full freedoms and independence, and all the choices were made by a single individual. The ideas expressed by King Louis include, “The head alone has the right to deliberate and decide,”. King Louis XIV’s ideas shows that in a monarchy all decisions are made by one single person, a monarch. In King Louis viewpoint this type of government was the best, but to to others such as enlightenment thinkers it was flawed. All decisions being made by a single ruler was an additional major flaw, of Absolutism. Furthermore, individuals did not like how King’s believed they were above everyone else. The ideas King James I of England
Thus as a result of Jefferson’s admiration of Locke the two documents share numerous similarities with one another. One of the common themes shared by both the Declaration of Independence and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is the focus on natural rights of man. These rights include the fundamental belief that all men are created equal along and entitled to liberty. Locke however believed that men were also entitled to property along with men being created equal, and having liberty. These rights would allow the people to dissolve the government if there needs were not being fulfilled. Also as a result of all men being entitled to these rights Locke believed that violation of his conceptions of natural rights such as slavery was the result of struggle between authority and the governed. In contrast the Declaration list that man is given the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Omitting Locke’s belief that men are entitled to property rather than happiness. However despite this difference both documents share the belief that men should be
Absolute monarchs ruled though the policy of absolutism. Absolutism declared that the king ruled though divine right with a legitimate claim to sole and uncontested authority (French State Building and Louis XIV). On this basis, Louis XIV of France and Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire were both absolute monarchs. Each ruler believed that his power belonged to him and him alone due to divine right. They showed their absolute power by living lavishly, increased their power by waging wars, and kept their power by ensuring complete loyalty of their subjects.
A Comparison of the Characteristics of the Absolutist Rule of Charles I of England and Louis XIV of France
Absolutism is defined as a form of government where the monarch rules their land freely without legal opposition. In modern times, when democracy is the ideal, this form of government seems cruel and tyrannical; however, there was an era when it thrived in European politics. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, absolute rule was justified by the concept of divine right and its improvements to the security and efficiency of a nation.
Specifically, the idea that man is endowed with certain liberties that were granted by God and/or nature was advocated by the Enlightenment thinkers. Many people took aim at arbitrary governments and the “divine right of kings.” John Locke in return offered principles of constructing a constitutional government, a contract between rulers and the ruled. In Document 7, John Locke in The Two Treatises of Government stated that men consent to enter society in order to preserve their natural rights such as life, liberty, and property. The government should protect people's natural rights and if not, then the people can remove their consent because the government derives its power from the consent of the people. John Locke wrote during the time period of the Enlightenment; therefore, his thoughts were based on the emerging idea of individualism furthermore man's inherent rights and powers. Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence (Document 9) that are all men are created equal and that they are endowed with certain natural rights. The Declaration of Independence was written because of England's tyrannical rule over the American colonies thus, the citizens felt that their natural rights were being abused by the English government. Individualism was indeed formed in response to the skepticism of the Church as
There are many different ways in which the Enlightenment affected the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. One way was the by the idea of a Social Contract; an agreement by which human beings are said to have abandoned the "state of nature" in order to form the society in which they now live. HOBBES, LOCKE, and J.J. ROUSSEAU each developed differing versions of the social contract, but all agreed that certain freedoms had been surrendered for society's protection and that the government has definite responsibilities to its citizens. Locke believed that governments were formed to protect the natural rights of men, and that overthrowing a government that did not protect these rights was not only a right, but also an obligation. His thoughts influenced many revolutionary pamphlets and documents, including the Virginia Constitution of 1776, and the Declaration of Independence.
The church’s robust grip on religious expression shattered as medieval society transitioned into a period known as the Reformation. Characterized by the rejection of common ideology, the Reformation sparked religious curiosity. Reformers such as John Calvin and Martin Luther offered interpretations of the Bible in direct opposition to the Catholic Church’s teachings, forcing Europeans to examine and formulate their own beliefs. This style of thinking was foreign to European society because up to this point in history Europeans were passive absorbers of Catholic Church ideology. Hence, it was natural that an era considered the Age of Enlightenment followed the period of rejection and questioning known as the Reformation. The Age of Enlightenment did not merely confine itself to religious expression, but spread throughout natural and social science. Thus, the Age of Enlightenment marked the beginning of academic and religious philosophy and allowed great minds to think free from restriction and condemnation of established institution. As the perception of natural
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.
When Louis the XIV began his rule in 1643, his actions immediately began to suggest and absolute dictatorship. Because of the misery he had previously suffered, one of the first things he did was to decrease the power of the nobility. He withdrew himself from the rich upper class, doing everything secretly. The wealth had no connection to Louis, and therefore all power they previously had was gone. He had complete control over the nobles, spying, going through mail, and a secret police force made sure that Louis had absolute power. Louis appointed all of his officials, middle class men who served him without wanting any power. Louis wanted it clear that none of his power would be shared. He wanted "people to know by the rank of the men who served him that he had no intention of sharing power with them." If Louis XIV appointed advisors from the upper classes, they would expect to gain power, and Louis was not willing to give it to them. The way Louis XIV ruled, the sole powerful leader, made him an absolute ruler. He had divine rule, and did not want to give any power to anyone other than himself. These beliefs made him an absolute ruler.
During the 16th and 17th centuries a new type of ruling emerged as a result of unorganized government called royal absolutism. This type of government was seen in many European countries including France and Russia where King Louis XIV and Peter the Great ruled respectively. Both had ways of ruling that were similar to each other and different to each other. Politically, economically and socially both Louis XIV and Peter the Great were similar to and different from how they ruled and what their reign resulted.
During the late 17th and early 18th century, many European nations such as France and Russia were absolute monarchies. Even countries such as England had kings who at least attempted to implement absolutism. Indeed the concept of absolutism, where the monarch is the unquestionably highest authority and absolute ruler of every element in the realm, is certainly appealing to any sovereign. However, this unrestricted power was abused, and by the end of the 18th century, absolutism was gone. Absolutism failed because the monarchs' mistreatment of the population caused the people to revolt against their rule and policies. There are many factors which caused this discontent. For one, there was a great loss of human lives. Louis XIV of France participated in four wars, while Peter of Russia ruthlessly executed anyone who stood against his will. Secondly, monarchs attempted to change religious beliefs. This was notable in England where rulers such as James II desired to convert the Anglican nation into Catholicism. Finally, the burden of taxation was more than the population could support. France was brought into huge foreign debt, English kings constantly attempted to raise money, and Peter of Russia increased taxes by 550 percent. These are some of the key reasons why absolutism failed in Europe.
Absolutism was a period of tyranny in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries because monarchs had complete power to do whatever they pleased. Since absolutism is a "monarchical form of government in which the monarch's powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law" essentially there are no boundaries for actions the monarch can and cannot take. The absolutists did not focus on the people under their rule, they ruled by fear and punishment, and believed they were equal to God.
Absolutism describes a form of monarchical power that is unrestrained by all other institutions, such as churches, legislatures, or social elites. To achieve absolutism one must first promote oneself as being powerful and authoritative, then the individual must take control of anyone who might stand in the way of absolute power. The Palace of Versailles helped King Louis XIV fulfill both of those objectives. Versailles used propaganda by promoting Louis with its grandiosity and generous portraits that all exuded a sense of supremacy. Versailles also helped Louis take control of the nobility by providing enough space to keep them under his watchful eye. The Palace of Versailles supported absolutism during King Louis XIV’s reign through propaganda, and control of nobility.
The term ‘absolute” defines the singular power of the monarch to control every aspect of governing without the aid of the aristocracy or parliamentary forms of governance. The example of Louis XIII defines the rise of absolute monarchy in the 17th century, which eliminated agreements, such as the edict of Nantes, which enabled to aristocracy rights and powers in governmental decisions., however, Louis XIII dissolved these laws in order to gain total dominance over governmental affairs through military and financial might. In this example. Louis XIII defines the role of absolute monarch and the individual powers that the king welled over the government in 17th century
Compare John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which, while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state, present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies. 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.