I do not believe that one person should be able to rule without question. If Hobbes believes that human nature is so evil, why does he allow one evil person to reign unchecked? Locke’s vision of continual consent to governmental rule is much more appealing than Hobbes’s tyrant. Even though his views on human nature seem too good to be true, Locke’s philosophy is alluringly practical. If you do not agree with your government, simply leave and find another government you do agree with.
John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu were political philosophers that debated the question of who was best fit to control the government. Locke and Montesquieu shared similar political beliefs such as natural rights and the separation of government powers. However, both philosophers did, in fact, have their personal views that helped them accomplish important achievements. John Locke published “Two Treatises of Government” and “ An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” which present a detail philosophy of the mind and thought. Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,” lays out his philosophical project.
King qualify the idea of being against the government when it becomes corrupted to guide humanity to a brighter path. Described by Thoreau, civilians are encouraged not to let governments overrule by putting morals ahead of unjust laws. If governments did overrule and people refuse to disobey, the outcomes of letting unjust laws exist would be worse than evil. Thus, civilians need to civilly disobedient during these situations when unjust laws exist but if people are too fearful to act “until they have persuaded the majority… the fault of the government itself” would create a remedy worse than evil (Thoreau 9). Unjust laws need to be transgressed by the citizens in order to create an enlightened state, one that recognizes the higher more independent power of an individual.
It emphasizes on the need of improving the party system to ensure that they are representing the public accurately. Unlike the Federalist Papers, this essay supports the need for political parties, since their role is to represent the public and having a two party system allow the public to have a choice between their political view, morals, and promises. The two party system also prevents the government from becoming hyperpluralistic and giving the public multiple positions to take hindering the progress of the nation. Therefore, I believe that this essay is informative and realistic since it acknowledges the existence of factions and, instead of presenting ways to destroy them, it presents information on how the public can improve the performance of the parties in order to improve the
In this condition, violence expedites individual agendas better than “peaceful behavior” (Piirimäe, 2006, p. 4). Hobbes argues that individuals are self-interested, thus unable to maintain structure without the presence of an overarching power (Hobbes, 1991). Both Hobbes and fellow philosopher, John Locke, agree that an anarchy is not desirable and that sacrifices must be made to preserve society. In order to achieve maximal justice, Locke argues for a “social contract” in which individuals give up certain rights to an authoritative power in order to retain others (Laslett, 1960). Agreeing to this social contract is a necessary adaptation that an individual must accept to ensure personal security and the survival of
The drafting of this document was another step forward in representative government, and the document itself provides a strong basis for Conservative and Libertarian thought. It also greatly influenced the Bill of Rights and the later Constitution. The document itself is eloquently written and splits into two main sections. The first part of The Declaration of Independence listed a view of what a government should do for its people, it advocates a weaker form of Minarchism, and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The latter part of the Declaration lists complaints against King George and intellectually justifies the new nation.
And while Hobbes supports a monarch with substantial power, he too believes that “the duty of the sovereign [is] to see that ordinary citizens are not oppressed by the great” and that the sovereign does not “oppress them on the advice of the great” (The Leviathan, 155). For these philosophers, the abuse of power is another form of the same competition that drives humankind into societies; it transforms a society from a tool that allows individuals to support each other and avoid competition into a tool for one individual to exploit the competition of the weaker
Political authority refers to the power of the state or government to create laws that are expected to be abided by, and in turn be able to prosecute those who disobey them. These laws are moral obligations meant to ensure the good functioning of societies, and are presumably essential to minimise conflicts. In political philosophy, we are concerned with the legitimacy of political authority due to its apparent conflict with individual liberties and moral autonomy as brought up by Wolff. (quote Wolff- it is incompatible for a subject to comply with the commands of an authority merely because it is the command of the authority and for the subject to be acting morally autonomously) This essay seeks to explicate on Locke’s justification of political
Not only this, but Locke believed that the duty of the government is to respect and protect the rights of life, liberty, and property. However, Locke did not believe in an all-powerful government and believed that the government should separate its powers with competing legislative and executive branches. Although these two views are conflicting, both Hobbes and Locke were able to articulate both the advantages and disadvantages of an all powerful government. Because of the oppression that the colonists were feeling under Britain, the words of Locke greatly influenced their governments beliefs and increased the
In some ways, Holmes’s approach resembles Edmund Burke’s political philosophy. Burke opposed the French Revolution because it embodied radical, abrupt, violent change. Instead he favored incremental change with due regard for tradition and social and political institutions. The government of human beings, he argued, is a matter not of applying cold rules and principles, but of attending to warm relationships and attachments to produce the strongest and best unified community. Change, Burke thought, should be