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 …show more content…
While it is not far fetched to say that people prioritize their interest above the interests of other people, this does not mean that they would be in a constant state of war. People are able of cooperation, and in fact need to cooperate in order to survive. To assume that Hobbes’ state of nature was true would be to assume that the only thing stopping people from killing, lying, and stealing is the fact that the law prohibits it. However, most people carry some sort of morality that stops them from doing that, and they also know that cooperation would get them much further than competition. Even if we assume, however, that Hobbes’ state of nature is true, it still would not justify obeying a tyrannical government. Having to live under a tyrannical government that does not protect one’s rights is in no way better than having to compete with other people for survival. In competing with other people, at least everyone is on equal footing. However, when competing against a government, then there is a power imbalance and the government can use its power to oppress the people. Therefore, the people should have the right to rebel against such a government. Citizens should not be forced to live under a government that transgresses their
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Achieving Change In Obama’s Inauguration even he stated that “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. ”(Obama)
the authors explain in this section that if people are pushed into a government that does not allow them to uphold their rights, then they are in their own rights to overthrow the current rulers in the pursuit of a better, and more just mode of governing. these beliefs are outlined in the next paragraph, where parallel structures are used in order to create a more impactful and riveting read. “. . . That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .” (CITATION NEEDED).
Do you believe all humans have the best intentions for others? Many people believe that we come into this world with only good inside of us, while others believe we all arrive good but our mindset is turned evil and self-obsessed throughout time as we grow older. In the 17th century there were many arguments on whether citizens should govern themselves or have a ruler to keep the citizens in control. Everyone has a clean slate at the start but the choices one makes can mold you into who you become later on. In the 17th century there were two philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, who both thought differently about human nature and the way some people are when it comes to money and power.
Hobbes and locke were two philosophers who two different ideas on the world and human behavior as a whole. Hobbes mainly believed that without any form of government people will always be trying to fight for power. On the other hand, Locke believed everyone is born peaceful but can be corrupted by society. Hobbes and Locke both had very different views on different human nature, the purpose of government, and both had a big influence on many different countries.
During the formation of a new nation, the government is founded upon one of four theories. The theory that most prominently influenced America's framers was the social contract theory, which can be described as a population in a state of nature giving up as much power to a government as needed to promote the wellbeing of all. To this end, the founding fathers endorsed Philosopher John Locke’s theory that since the government derives its power from its people, citizens are entitled to replace their government if their natural rights are violated. Therefore, during the American Revolution, American colonists were justified to utilize civil disobedience against British policies. Similarly, in modern times, citizens are still justified to practice their obligation explained in the Declaration of Independence that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation . . .
Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest revolutionary thinkers that ever existed, believed in the power of rebellion. He reasoned that conflict between government and the people occurred naturally. Jefferson “ hold[s] it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing” because he believes it to be “as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” This deep quote relates to the theme of conflict since conflicts between governments and their people lead to rebellions. Furthermore, this quote indicates that conflict plays an important role in society even at the national level.
“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends,it is the right of the peoples ' the alter or to abolish it…”This was stated in the Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson. This means that when any government starts to undermine the people’s natural rights which are life, liberty and property then later on changed by Thomas Jefferson,they have the right to change government or get rid of government if it’s not going well. The Declaration of Independence was a proclamation that listed basic principles of democratic government which stated colonists’ grievances against the king and gave reasons why colonists’ were free from British rule. This was signed and ratified by congress on July 4,1776 which stated why the
John Locke was a philosopher and political scientist. He had many interests and produced a number of writings that influenced future leaders. One of these leaders was Thomas Jefferson, who was involved with the aid of America and the act gaining independence from Britain. The Declaration of Independence and Locke’s views on government contain many similar aspects. These ideas includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (natural rights); the protection that is provided by the government for these rights; and the altering or abolishment of government if it fails to provide and protect the rights of the people.
John Locke, in some of his most immortal words, once said that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Locke believed in these natural rights of the human being, and he challenged the idea of a monarch’s divine right to the throne; instead, he favored a social contract in which people consented a government to rule over them. While they may relinquish some of their rights, these four should always remain: life, health, liberty, and possessions. Though at first sight these may seem trivial and obvious, there are times when the powers in force neglect them. It is during these times when people must utilize their born human right to protest in resistance to poor treatment and demand something better.
In the “Excerpts from The Second Treatise of Government” by John Locke, he talks about the state of nature, the property, and the ends of political society and government. In this paper, I will focus on explore Lockean theory of the property, and how his theory related to the economic inequality we face today. In the second paragraph, I will explain the Lockean concept of the state of nature, in order to help us explore Lockean theory of the property, and the end of political society and government. In the third paragraph, I will try to apply Lockean theory of property to the economic inequality we face today, and argue that his theory cannot fully justify the problem of economic inequality we face today. In the last paragraph, I will suggest what would be required in order to make the
The American Revolutionary War came about after decades of grievances on the part of the American colonies, grievances which were put in place by the British Parliamentary system. The lack of American representation in parliament paired with the multitudes of acts designed to take advantage of the colonies were cause enough for the colonies to revolt and to overthrow their government. There are few who would disagree with the American’s justification for the revolution, would Locke be one of them? No he would not, the American colonies were fully justified under Lockean reasons for revolution, considering how long they endured the grievances and the legislature that was passed against them.
He begins stating an argument that the government rarely proves itself useful and that it derives its power from the majority because they are the strongest group. He states that people have the right of revolution and people’s top priority is to do what they believe is right, and
Thomas Hobbes proposed that the ideal government should be an absolute monarchy as a direct result of experiencing the English Civil War, in which there was internal conflict between the parliamentarians and the royalists. Hobbes made this claim under the assumption that an absolute monarchy would produce consistent policies, reduce conflicts and lower the risk of civil wars due to the singular nature of this ruling system. On another hand, John Locke counters this proposal with the view that absolute monarchies are not legitimate as they are inconsistent with the state of nature. These two diametrically opposed views stem from Hobbes’ and Locke’s different understandings of human nature, namely with regard to power relationships, punishment, and equality in the state of nature. Hobbes’ belief that human beings are selfish and appetitive is antithetical with Locke’s contention that human beings are intrinsically moral even in the state of nature, which results in Locke’s strong disagreement with Hobbes’ proposed absolute monarchy.
Some may say that the most effective way to become free of oppression is in the form of insubordination or an uprising. Rebellion against government is justified only if the people of a nation are being deprived of their natural rights to live and better their lives. This has been the case in many revolutions in history, including the French and American Revolutions. Rebellion is not always justified, but can be