In the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke argues that citizens have the right of revolution when the government acts against their interests. To Locke, revolution was an obligation, however, many other philosophers do not view it that way. Edmund Burke, for example, believed that gradual change was better than all out revolution. Other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes believed that the people need to obey their government due to a ‘social contract’ between them and the state. This essay will argue that a right to revolution needs to be granted to citizens in the case of a tyrannical government because it is the government’s duty to serve its citizens, and if it fails to do so, the people need to replace it with an alternate form of governance.
Paine suggests that our government, which was created “on the principles of society and the rights of man”, is able to overcome the differences of political and racial beliefs. Though the nation being built upon these differences, the school of thought that “every difficulty retires” can be disproved. To commence, the discordant existence of multiple cultures and religions has been witnessed throughout this country 's history and today. Paine acknowledges that "it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable" and to some extent it is. Although a majority of people are able to coexist with their neighbors peacefully, it has become presently clear that this is not always the case.
During the process of creating a social contract, the people exchange their freedom and natural rights for a stable state, thus giving the sovereign the ability to enact laws. Many believe that the modern day executive branch fulfills the role of Locke’s sovereign, and is responsible for protecting public interests i.e. the natural rights of the people, despite the lack of specific legislation . According to Locke’s theory a law created by the sovereign is only valid if it is related to an individuals natural rights of life, freedom and property. Thus the law “you will not stand on the blood of your neighbor” is valid because it protects the natural right that an individual has to life.
Response to the 3rd question Since their beginnings, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have set new courses in the field of political philosophy. Although their writings overlap in some areas and follow a similar logical sequence in the layout of arguments, there are certain points of disagreement. This essay will elaborate on three of the several points of disagreement which concern their perceptions and takes on the State of Nature, absolute monarchies and liberty. It will argue that the differences between their stances are caused by the opposite assumptions they start with – Hobbes argues that men are led by their passions and that the resources he has access to are limited, while Locke argues that men are led by reason only and that they live
The Founding Fathers and the public felt that the constitution didn’t set up enough boundaries for the government, they felt that the government would assume too much power and take away the “Natural Rights” of the human. The Bill of Rights was set up to make sure the public felt safe and to make sure the government couldn’t abuse their power and turn it into a communist state or a dictatorship. America and our Founding Fathers based our Bill of Rights off the English Bill of Rights, so naturally there will be a lot of similarities between the two. Much like the Amendments in the English Bill of Rights, which states: “The crown shall not have no interference with the law” and “The Freedom of speech in Parliament, in that proceedings in Parliament were not to be questioned in the courts or in any body outside Parliament itself” Our First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
“Do good and avoid evil” is a result of the differing educational, religious and cultural influences on man in the various times and places of his historical development. Thomas Aquinas contended that general principles of the natural law cannot be applied to all men in the same way on the great variety of human affairs, thus arises the diversity of positive laws among various people. Human laws deal with changing and contingent matters and often with singulars, do not have the certitude that belongs to the speculative sciences. Each has its own realm of operation and is sufficient that each have the certitude proper to its own realm. [ Ibid. ]
An effective government needs to establish and consistently maintain absolute authority for the safety the commonwealth, in so doing, the safety of the sovereign. If each individual is to decide for themselves whether to obey the government or not, uprisings and resistance against the government will occur, resulting in dissenting disagreements and civil war. Secondly, what is said to be actions of “goodness” and what is said to be actions of “evil”, are legislated by the civil law, who is representative of the Commonwealth. Hence, if every private individual was to be his own judge of what is good and evil, debates and disputes would arise concerning what the sovereign has decreed regarding actions in the prior regards. The commonwealth would thus be distracted and
People would be afraid to go against the prince as it would be seen as an act against God and they wouldn’t want to invoke God’s wrath so they will follow the prince. Domat believed that it was vital for a country to have a government or someone in charge in order to have stability in the country, that is how he justifies his need of giving certain people (e.g. Kings) authority over others. He stated that “since all people do not do their duty and some…commit injustices, for the sake of keeping order… all enterprises against this order must be repressed: which was possible only through authority given to some over others, and which made government necessary”. This shows that Domat believed that it was essential to give some people authority over others in order to run a country smoothly, otherwise, if there was no one at the top governing the people then people
Even though people are, according to Locke, naturally free and thus have no duty to obey others, the fact that people adhere to their government’s respective laws means that they have consented to those same laws of the sovereign that rules over them. Consenting to the government is not often expressed by citizens, either in verbal or written form. By joining a body politic under a legitimate government, one displays a moral duty to tacitly obey the laws of their government. A legitimate government can be defined as a body of power that respects the natural rights of men and adheres to the laws of nature, while simultaneously providing guidance for the people that it carries power over. In return, the body politic must observe the laws that the government sets, respecting their legitimacy.
He demands that political power must be derived from the consent of the governed and not be “the product only of force and violence,” and to protect men ensuring that they will no longer be ruled by “beasts” (Locke 7). The Palace of Versailles is a visual representation of the belief that in some ways King Louis XIV was an agent of God—that he was connected to Him in some fundamental way—and thus God sanctioned his actions and his rule and none of his subjects could interfere with it; as such, King Louis XIV only answered to God. John Locke’s argument is rooted in a belief in God’s inherent power over man and His rules imposed through nature. However, the conclusion of Locke’s argument differs in form and function. Rather than giving a single man power through God, like a king, he shows in his arguments for freedom and liberty that men are controlled by God’s laws of nature and government can only gain control over them through their freely given