Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Analysis of john lockes political philosopy
Locke and Hobbes philosophies
John locke views government
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Analysis of john lockes political philosopy
Locke had undoubtedly aimed to defend ideas that are still being debated today. Rather distinctively, Locke portrays sovereignty as belonging and residing with the people. Unlike Hobbes, we see the state of nature as consisting of equality and there is an existence of natural rights that govern behaviour. Yet, the question is to why a society may need a sovereign if the state of nature was so, arguably, peaceful in the first place. Locke argues that this is because there are bound to be some people infringing others’ rights (‘inconveniences’), which will then need to be sanctioned (Laslett 1988). Also, a state and separate judicial, legislative and executive branches are required to protect private property. If the government ceases to act in the interests of the people it represents, then the people can dissolve the government and thus there is no real sovereignty of the government in Locke’s portrayal, unlike Hobbes. The core notion is that of consent; people have to come to an agreement to have a state, government and all the other powers it may then bring (Laslett 1988). Similar to Hobbes’ idea of a social contract, therefore, the people give consent to be governed. This political power is hence not like anything else (such as paternal power). “No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entring into any Society, makes him a perfect member of that Society, a Subject of that Government” (Laslett 1988, p.119). Thus, in a Lockean view, the very presence of one on the ‘soil’ shows that s/he has given, more specifically, tacit consent. Yet, Locke fails to give any examples that could illustrate this notion and support it any further. As a result, it is inevitable that many questions arise. For instance, one could not know w... ... middle of paper ... ...t some level of satisfaction with the consent. Works Cited Axford, B et al. (2002). Politics: An Introduction, 2nd edition. London: Routledge. Boucher, D and Kelly, P. (2009). Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. United States: Oxford University Press Inc., New York. Goodwin, B. (2007). Using Political Ideas, 5th edition. New York: Wiley. Haakonssen, K., ed. (1994). Political Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hampsher-Monk, I. (1992). A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell. Laslett, P., ed. (1988). The Second Treatise of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levine, A. (2002). Engaging Political Philosophy: From Hobbes to Rawls. Oxford: Blackwell. Rawls, J. (2007). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. United States: Harvard University Press.
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
Hofstadter, Richard. The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It. New York: Vintage, 1989.
Strauss, Leo, and Joseph Cropsey. History of Political Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Somerville, John and Ronald E. Santoni. Social and Political Philosophy. New York: Anchor Books, 1963.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two political philosophers who are famous for their theories about the formation of the society and discussing man in his natural state.
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...
Jones, W. T. Masters of Political Thought. Ed. Edward, McChesner, and Sait. Vol. 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1947.
...ture. As Locke himself says: the obligations of the law of nature cease not in society. There is thus a double restraint upon the body politic; it has to respect the natural rights to life liberty and property which people enjoyed in the state of nature and to abide by the law of nature itself. In short, unlike the social contract of Hobbes which gives absolute and unlimited powers to the sovereign ruler, the original contract of Locke gives only limited powers to the community; it is not a bond of slavery but charter of freedom. In the hands of Locke the contract theory is made to serve the purpose for which it was originally enunciated; namely, to defend the liberty of the individual against the claim to absolute authority on the part of the ruler. It hardly needs pointing out that Locke uses it to preserve as much of natural freedom to the individual as possible.
Cantor, Paul A. "The Simpsons." Political Theory 27.6 (December 1999): 734. MasterFile FullText 1500. Palni SiteSearch. Goshen College Good Library. 19 March 2000.
Cahn, Steven M.. Political philosophy: the essential texts. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.
In this paper I will look at how Locke uses of the idea of private property to justify coercive political authority, by using concepts such as the state of nature to frame the argument. I will also look at the strengths and weaknesses with Locke’s position, namely weaknesses relating to the lack of consideration given to the poor, and strengths relating to the rationality of his state of nature, his advocacy for democracy and his distinction between property establishing set boundaries. Finally I will suggest that his theory of government while providing a solid framework, does not account for everyone within society, and as a result lacks persuasiveness.
Wooton, David ed. “Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche.” Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2008.
Hoffman, J. & Graham, P. (2009), Introduction to Political Theory, 2nd Edition: London: Pearson Education Limited.
” (Hernandez 2013b, 16) In Locke’s words, he says that all men are created equal by God and have natural rights to life, liberty and property, including their body nature and for its purpose of self-preservation. Once the societies are formed, men will no longer able to take control in their hands because the purpose of the government is to protect each individual’s natural right and also to provide for the common good. Liberty means as an individual we have the freedom that we can take our responsibility in matters in our hands. It is relevant to us as a human being to have rights of our own than to have the government making decision for us. The challenge of balancing the government needs for individual freedom and legitimacy is the people feel that they have the rights to speak and take priority into their
Holbling, Hugo. Political Philosophy. The Galilean Magazine and Library. 8 Jun. 2005. Web. 1 Oct. 2011.