The right of revolution was provided to those in Locke’s society as he did not believe in giving the government absolute power. He was against this because an absolute monarch does not provide separate powers to file grievances in the event that an appeal of injury was needed. Locke believed in the rule of the majority. If the majority felt that the government was not protecting their natural rights or acting in their best interest they had a right and a duty to engage in revolution. Rousseau believes in republicanism where they are ruled by the will of the people. Once everyone in this society agrees to the contract, the general will is made and agreed upon by all in the society, and everyone must abide by said will. Rousseau believed the more active we are in society, the …show more content…
In order for laws to be enacted, they must be known by the constituents. Laws are created, enacted, and enforced to preserve civil society. For Locke and Rousseau these laws are made by the people who will have to abide by them. Considering that these laws were agreed by the majority, it is expect that they will follow said laws. Those who break the law in civil society are punished to the full extent of the law by an impartial judge. The difference between breaking the law in civil society and the state of nature is that justice in the civil society is meant to deter lawlessness with punishments proportionate to the crime. In the state of nature/ war it is likely that the punishment will not be proportionate to the crime.
Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have differing ideals concerning the commonwealth or government they have all still contributed greatly to our modern society. As a result of being in the state of nature, where man is focused on self-preservation. This self-preservation leads to a state of war because we are only looking out for ourselves. The consensus of Locke and Hobbes is that in the state of war man cannot be trusted to act rationally concerning
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.
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
Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.
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. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
The political philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx examined the role that the state played and its relationship to its citizen’s participation and access to the political economy during different struggles and tumultuous times. Rousseau was a believer of the concept of social contract with limits established by the good will and community participation of citizens while government receives its powers given to it. Karl Marx believed that power was to be taken by the people through the elimination of the upper class bourgeois’ personal property and capital. While both philosophers created a different approach to establishing the governing principles of their beliefs they do share a similar concept of eliminating ownership of capital and distributions from the government. Studying the different approaches will let us show the similarities of principles that eliminate abuse of power and concentration of wealth by few, and allow access for all. To further evaluate these similarities, we must first understand the primary principles of each of the philosophers’ concepts.
The state of war would likely occur if a civil government did not properly care for its citizens because it exists when there is conflict between citizens and “no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief. ”5 It is very likely that this could arise if a government did nothing to prevent conflict and was not invested in its citizens’ rights. Locke also has a stronger 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. Locke’s proposal for the proper behavior of a civil government distinguishes between the law and the lawmaker, and when a legislative body creates a law, the rules of the law itself are above it. Hobbes’ proposal does not differentiate between the lawmaker and the lawmaker because the lawmaker under his system of government would have complete control of the law.
... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
Rousseau presumes that in the beginning, humans were living in a peaceful state of nature and lived in equality, but as civilization progressed it began to change man as challenges became more elaborate, lives became more complicated, development of the possession of property began, and habitually more comparisons were made amongst us. The first law of nature also contributed to our sense of ownership. The first law of nature recognized by Rousseau is self-preservation; we care about ourselves then society and this law is used to defend or prove our own independence. As a result or this change of civility, we shifted to a state of nature that was far from grace, where we desired the suffering of others, only cared about ourselves, and developed the meaning of inequalities. People realized that their natural rights could no longer coexist with their freedom in the state of nature and also that they would perish if they did not leave the state of nature. Therefore, the state of nature no longer became desirable and society restored that motive; in this new societal environment we develop morals to handle conflicts and help preserve ourselves. Locke believes that while in our natural state we all have morals, though Rousseau challenges that belief by claiming that society generates a moral character within us. Rousseau insists that everyone can be free and live
The main critics of Thomas Hobbes’ work are most often those with a more optimistic view of human nature. However, if one is to really look at a man’s actions in depth, a self-serving motivation can always be found. The main problem with Hobbes’ claims is that he does not account for the more Darwinian perspective that helping one’s own species survive is at the same time a selfish and unwar-like act. Thus his conclusion that without a governing body, we are essentially at war with one another is not completely true as years of evolution can help disprove.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
The liberty described by Locke would be lost under the system because people would inevitably have too much freedom, making the protection of property difficult. It becomes evident that laws are needed to protect the property of the people, and Locke seems to agree. This statement means that while people have obligations and freedoms that come from the state of nature, individuals also have obligations. Locke claims that government arose because of the instability of the state of nature, in which individuals and their property were under constant threat. He also asserts that individuals freely decided to give up some of their rights to a central authority, seeing that there were benefits in giving up some of their rights to gain something else.
Thomas Hobbes? idea of a perfect government was one of small proportions. All of the citizens of a country had a ?covenant?, or promise with the ruler. This covenant with the ruler stated that the citizen would give up the right to govern his or herself, and give that right to the ruler. Hobbes? idea of society arises from an innate competition between every man. Everyone seeks their advantage, and is always at war with everyone else for that advantage. These factions negotiate, according to Hobbes, complying with whatever principles will ensure survival for its members. So according to Hobbes, war is the natural state of man. Peace is only had by our natural tendencies to compromise, and survive.