The Legitimate Authority of a Despot in the UK

1739 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: comparing thomas hobbes, john locke and rousseau

I will advance the thesis, if an enlightened despot seized power in the UK, and governed it justly, then the despot would have legitimate authority. By saying the despot’s authority would be legitimate, I mean that, even though the despot abruptly seized power without the explicit consent of the citizens, which would then result in a loss of autonomy and negative liberty, the authority is governing the society justly, so a small amount of their rights must be sacrificed for a better society. I have three reasons for asserting the legitimate authority of the despot; first, the tacit and hypothetical consent theories; second, instrumentalism; and third, positive liberty. As mentioned above, my thesis stating the legitimacy of the despot’s political authority is heavily dependent on the consent and acceptance of the subjects; for although there are differing opinions on this subject, I intend to prove it’s legitimacy, then disprove any objections that are against my thesis. The potential reach of my argument needs to be specified at the outset by clarifying the sense in which I will be using certain terms. To begin, I will define legitimate political authority as, “a right to rule (Raz 1985, p. 3),” and this definition illustrates that the authority is legitimate based on the fact that the despot is not just accepted because they want the authority and power, but because they have a right to be the authority. With this definition, the despot has the right to rule, so the citizens are obligated to obey, which is described from the consent theories, which were originally proposed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to characterize the nature of the relationship between the ruler and the ruled. In this context, I define the ... ... middle of paper ... ...ty betters the lives of the subjects, so the sacrifices of autonomy and negative liberty are well worth it. Given these points, it is clear that my thesis asserting the enlightened despot’s legitimate political authority is indisputable. Works Cited Berlin, Isaiah (1969): Two Concepts of Liberty, in: Liberty: Incorporating Four Essays on Liberty. Oxford University Press, 118-172. Frankfurt, Harry G (1973): The Anarchism of Robert Paul Wolff, in: Political Theory. Sage Publications, 405-415. Pitkin, Hanna (1965): Obligation and Consent-I, in: The American Political Science Review, 990-999. Raz, Joseph (1985): Authority and Justification, in: Philosophy and Public Affairs. Princeton University Press, 3-29. Simmons, John A (1976): Tacit Consent and Political Obligation, in: Philosophy and Public Affairs. Princeton University Press, 274-291.

Show More
Related

  • Ronald Takaki's Iron Cages: Race and Culture in 19th-Century America

    1673 Words  | 4 Pages

    insist on our right of and capacity for being self-governing individuals. But we find ourselves again under the rule of a king - an authority exterior to the self. This time, however, we cannot as easily identify the king and declare our independence." Despite

    Read More

  • Autonomy, Responsibility and the American Revolution

    2760 Words  | 6 Pages

    Can certain people assume absolute rights over others? Do people deserve a voice in determining what goes on in their lives as well as their country? Are people liable for their own actions? The questions asked above all fall under one theme that will be discussed: autonomy and responsibility. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word ‘autonomy’ as self-government or the right to self-government; self-determination; independence.

    Read More

  • Hobbes as a Social Covenant Theorist

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...e ruler only holds power as long as his subjects obey his punishment commands. The sovereign does not determine the question of obedience to his commands, because that is ultimately a question the subjects determine for themselves, based on their assessment of their best interests and welfare. It therefore follows that the people as subjects, in due course, establish the very existence of the sovereign, which is dependent on obedience to his commands.

    Read More

  • Napoleon Power Corruption Analysis

    585 Words  | 2 Pages

    Power has always been seen as the killer of morality. Powerlessness, however, allows and almost encourages a leader to use his strength to his advantage. The ascent to despotism may begin by instituting slightly stricter laws that give

    Read More

  • Evaluation of Dworkin's and Habermas's Approach to Civil Disobedience

    1619 Words  | 4 Pages

    William Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social Philosophy Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).

    Read More

  • Genocide: A Challenge to the Right to Life

    2165 Words  | 5 Pages

    Therefore, legislation as deliberate law-making and the voice of the state of the sovereign body calls the common good of the life of man to the forefront of this question, both when democracy rules but primarily when totalitarian despots reign. The politicization of bare life as such legitimates the power of the sovereign state. But as repetitive instances of state-sponsored genocide have shown multiple times throughout the 20th century, state power can and does abuse the life of the citizen, whose life is paradoxically the force of the nation-state itself. It is through this e...

    Read More

  • Respect, Coercion and Religious Belief

    3319 Words  | 7 Pages

    Somewhere near the heart of much contemporary liberal political theory is the claim that if the state restricts an agent's liberty, its restrictions should have some rationale that is defensible to each of those whose liberty is constrained. Liberals are committed to the "requirement that all aspects of the social order should either be made acceptable or be capable of being made acceptable to every last individual." But there are many kinds of claim which are particularly controversial, many about which we expect reasonable disagreement. Coercive policies should not be justified on the basis of such controversial grounds; rather, they should enjoy public justification. That coercive policy should enjoy public justification implies that political actors are subject to various principles of restraint, that is, that they should restrain themselves from supporting policies solely on the basis of excessively controversial grounds. The point of advocating restraint is to achieve a minimal moral conception, a core morality, which is rationally acceptable to all and which provides the ground rules for political association.

    Read More

  • The Exclusion of Women's Rights

    1377 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...f those who submit authority to have a voice in their own government.” To the rest of the world, the US was the best place for democracy, yet they were not instilling the ideas they fought for. (Greenberg & Page, pg. 235)

    Read More

  • Comparing Foucault's 'Truth And Juridical Forms'

    2238 Words  | 5 Pages

    They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.

    Read More

  • Coercion, The State, and Anarchy

    2516 Words  | 6 Pages

    Coercion, and subsequently the right to use violence, is the state’s sole method for functioning and existing. Without it, the state is powerless to exist credibly. Thus, at the core of political theory is the argument to justify the state’s use of coercion; without this, the state cannot be ethically justifiable. However, can a violent, or otherwise morally dubious act such as coercion, ever be truly justified? If enough good comes of it, surely it could be mitigated, but how much ‘good’ is enough? And can we really ever justify the indefinite use of coercion based solely upon favorable outcomes that have occurred in the past? If we cannot, then the only option that may be justified could be anarchy.

    Read More

  • Summary Of The Conflict Of Autonomy And Authority By Robert Paul Wolff

    816 Words  | 2 Pages

    In “The Conflict of Autonomy and Authority” Robert Paul Wolff argues that the state’s authority is in conflict with having genuine autonomy. He reasons as follows. If there were a supreme political authority, which have a right to rule, there would be an obligation for a man to obey its laws. However, a man has an obligation to be autonomous, which means taking responsibility for making one’s own decisions about what one should do. Autonomous man has primary obligation to refuse to be ruled. Therefore, a supreme political authority does not have a right to claim authority over a man who has a moral obligation to be autonomous. He concludes by denying the concept of de jure legitimate state.

    Read More

  • John Locke Tyranny Analysis

    1450 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke defines tyranny as “the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have the right to”, he further explains it as the ruler using his power, not for the good of the people but to his own private separate advantage (363). Locke sites a speech made by King James I, in which he states the clear difference between a lawful king and a tyrant. The lawful king procures the wealth and property of his people while a tyrant thinks “his kingdom and the people are only ordained for the satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites” (363). By this Locke claims that monarchies, oligarchies and democracies alike can have tyrannical leaders, whether its one person ruling the state or a group of people. A group of individuals with enough power over people can use that power to “impoverish, harass, or subdue” the people. It is then that they have abused their power and become tyrannical. Locke sees this as the government being in a state of war against its people. Locke states that people are all born in the state of nature having absolute freedom within the bounds of the law of nature. In this state people begin acquiring property, but with no written law, people’s property becomes unsecure. People enter a civil society, where there is a legislative and an executive branch. The legislative’s duty is to create laws and the executive i...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Considerations On Representative Government

    557 Words  | 2 Pages

    And because it is not necessary for them to voice their opinions, the public becomes uninterested and uninformed on the matters of government. This leaves people with stunted mental capacities. A good despotism is a government with no positive oppression by officers of state, but where all the interests of the public are managed for them. Mill asserts that despotism that consents not to be despotism could, in fact, be good. However, it depends on the despot. If the despot would refrain from exercising absolute power and instead, appoint a council chosen by the people, the despot could get rid of the evil elements of despotism. Mill continues to shed light on this despotic monarchy which is, in actuality, a representative government, when public opinion is allowed. Public opinion will either be for or against the despot. If it is against him, he can either put down opposition or defer to the nation. The former would cause animosity between the despot and the people; the latter would indicate a constitutional king rather than a monarch. Mill concludes by saying that the principle element behind a good government is the improvement of the

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast John Locke And Thomas Hobbes

    1570 Words  | 4 Pages

    The cornerstone of John Locke’s political theory stands on the basis of consent between the people and the ruling government, for without consent society reverts to a state of perpetual chaos much like the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. On January 25, 2011, the people of Egypt felt that Hosni Mubarak—the president of Egypt at the time—did not have the country’s best interests at heart and in a long overdue decision, decided to overthrow his regime. One could not say they did not see it coming as all the signs were there—police brutality, poverty and corruption were only a few of the many reasons behind the upheaval. The people wanted a democracy, for the government at the time did not maintain their natural rights; life, liberty and property. This goes in hand with John Locke’s belief that a rebellion will occur once a government infringes an individual’s rights. Locke said that “Men being, as has been said, by Nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this Estate, and subjected to the Political Power of another, without his own Consent.” In this case, Hosni Muburak lost the required consent once the residents of Egypt felt that they were experiencing a lifestyle riddled with infringed

    Read More

  • The Concept of Tyranny in Literature

    1320 Words  | 3 Pages

    All social contract theorists and classical thinkers understand tyranny to be someone (or government) with unrestrained power that is unjust or unfair to the body, it governs. They each share some views about the effects of tyranny but they have different views on the preventions and the circumstances that give rise to tyranny. In the end, Locke has the most effective ideas as opposed to Plato and Hobbes. Although, they are all equally great minds, based on the democracy that Americans hold true, Locke’s analysis can be the only logical means of proposed prevention.

    Read More

More about The Legitimate Authority of a Despot in the UK

Open Document