Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
Critique of Social Contract theory
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Critiques of thomas hobbes political philosophy
Absolutism and the age of reason
The film Cromwell presented a biased interpretation of its titled character. The film portrays Cromwell as a devout Puritan. Illustrated by a scene where Cromwell practiced iconoclasm in a church, he destroyed crosses and other religious ornaments. While this scene effectively demonstrated Cromwell’s religiosity, the film failed to foreshadow Cromwell’s religious extremism and horrendous treatment of Catholics during his reign as the Lord Protector. In Ireland, Cromwell allowed the slaughter of Catholics at Drogheda and Wexford. This religiously driven war crime damaged Anglo-Irish relations for centuries. His religious beliefs also led to a ban on religious celebrations like Christmas. These policies do not
…show more content…
After the Civil War, the film showed the discontent among the commoners as the new parliament failed to represent their interests. But the film did not include the opinions of the masses following Cromwell’s ascension to Protector. Implying the end of civil unrest and the reforms enacted in Cromwell’s government. When in fact, Cromwell was not the champion of democratic rights, he once said to a purged Parliament, “Government, is for the people's good, not what pleases them”. Nor was he a staunched republican. When he was offered the Crown by Parliament in the film, Cromwell is seen to reject the proposal immediately. But in reality, Cromwell took three months to make his decision. The film exaggerates Cromwell’s response to show the audience how anti-monarchical he was. The rejection of the crown would insult his republican officers and perhaps limit his power as head of state. As the role of the crown was more defined than his future office of Lord Protector, thus political expedience possibly played a part in his rejection of kingship. The vagueness of the power of the Lord Protector strays away from the constitutionalism Cromwell stood for in the film, and shows Cromwell willing to sacrifice constitutional principles in order to rule effectively. The film also did not highlight the fact that Cromwell intended the Protectorate to be hereditary, and have his son …show more content…
Locke claims that people are reasonable and inherently good. He believes all people are born equal and are entitled to basic rights such as the right to life, liberty and property. He believed in the social contract theory, he stated that governments should protect individual rights and freedoms, but the people should change the government if it does not serve the people. He believed in religious toleration as well as limited government. On the other hand, Hobbes believed that people are born evil and must be controlled by an absolutist state. An absolutist state that offers protection for its citizens and prevents societal chaos. Hobbes also believed in the social contract theory, which states that the people should give up their freedom in order for the government to provide order and protection. However, Hobbes did not think the people had the right to revolt against the government. I identity with Locke’s philosophy the most. Growing up in a democracy, I believe the government should be representative of the people it governs. I think that humans are born with certain genetic and traits that define us, but we are all open to societal conditioning that mold us accordingly. I think a limited government with checks on its power is the safest, most stable form of government. I strongly disagree with Hobbes’ notion that the people are not entitled to revolt
Oliver Cromwell was a well known military dictator. He helped the Parliamentarians win the First Civil War and was named Lord Protector. He died in 1658 but many people still remember him as one of the best leaders in history although others believe he was a harsh tyrant and always wanted too much power for himself. Throughout the years, numerous historians have changed their views on whether he was a good leader or not. This work will look at three interpretations from different people on who Cromwell was and what he was like and compare them.
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
That is not to say there was no opposition to the reformation, for it was rife and potentially serious. The opposition came from both the upper and lower classes, from the monks and nuns and from foreign European powers. This opposition however, was cleverly minimised from the outset, Cromwell’s master plan ensured court opposition was minimal and new acts, oaths and decrees prevented groups and individuals from publicly voicing their dissatisfaction. Those who continued to counter such policies were ruthlessly and swiftly dealt with, often by execution, and used as examples to discourage others. Henry’s desire for a nation free of foreign religious intervention, total sovereign independence, a yearning of church wealth and the desire for a divorce sewed the seeds for reform.
Lockes and Hobbes ideas of government differed greatly, Hobbes believed in an absolute government while Locke believed in a very limited one.Locke believed that people were naturally good and trustful and that they had the capacity to govern themselves. So the need of the government only came in the form of stopping any potential disputes that would occur. While Hobbes believed that humans were not all that good and their need for government stemmed from the fact that people cannot govern themselves. Furthermore Locke believed that the governments role was to listen to the people it was governing, a rule by consent. While Hobbes believed that the Government was to rule on it’s own and owed no answers or consent by the people. Moreover Locke believed that the purpose of the government was to protect the property and freedom of its people, while Hobbes believed that the governments role was to tell them what to do. But arguably the biggest difference between the philosophies is the notion of government accountability. Hobbes believed that the government had free reign to do what they please with no backlash, while Locke believed that if the social contract was broken then the people of the community had the right to revolt and over throw the government. To further this point Locke unlike Hobbes believed that leaders should
Under the reign of Elizabeth I, England enjoyed a period of religious toleration. However, near the end of her reign, a growing religious minority, the Puritans, became increasingly critical of her policies, believing that she was still too close to Catholicism. These grievances were magnified when Elizabeth's successor, James I, a devout Anglican, proved to be far less tolerant and tactful. Furthermore, James was accused of abusing his royal authority by attempting to undermine Parliament. The growing tension between Anglicans and Puritans worsened under James' son, Charles I, who repeatedly angered a Parliament in which the House of Commons had gained a significant Puritan influence. In response, the Puritans, led by Oliver Cromwell, called for a reformation of the church, including the abolition of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and a ban on bishops voting in the House of Lords. When Charles attempted to dispel the situation by arresting five Commons leaders, loyalties in the country split and the English Civil War began.
Their theories are both psychologically insightful, but in nature, they are drastically different. Although they lived in the same timeframe, their ideas were derived from different events happening during this time. Hobbes drew his ideas on man from observation, during a time of civil strife in Europe during the 1640's and 1650's. Locke drew his ideas from a time where Hobbes did not have the chance to observe the, glorious revolution. In uncivilized times, in times before government, Hobbes asserted the existence of continual war with "every man, against every man." On this point, Locke and Hobbes were not in agreement. Locke, consistent with his philosophy, viewed man as naturally moral.
This is particularly potent when considering the novel’s end in which Cromwell has reached his peak in terms of influence and power, and yet the reader’s historical perspective awards them the knowledge of his later downfall that follows shortly afterwards. This therefore indicates that the novel acts simply as a snapshot in the never-ending progression of
Hobbes and Locke’s each have different ideologies of man’s state of nature that develops their ideal form of government. They do however have similar ideas, such as how man is born with a perfect state of equality that is before any form of government and social contract. Scarcity of goods ultimately leads to Hobbes and Locke’s different states of nature that shapes their two different ideal governments because Hobbes believes that scarcity of goods will bring about a constant state of war, competition, and greed of man that cannot be controlled without a absolute sovereign as government while Locke believes that with reasoning and a unified government, man will succeed in self preservation of himself and others.
Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature.... ... middle of paper ... ... Locke also has a better argument than Hobbes because Hobbes’ belief that it is necessary to have a supreme ruler in order to prevent the state of war in society is inherently flawed.
Oliver Cromwell was a prominent leader during the civil war. Cromwell played a leading role in capturing Charles I to trial and execution. During the civil war, Cromwell’s military abilities commit highly to the parliamentary victory which made him appointed as the new model army leader. Also, the parliaments determined that he would end the civil war as the powerful man in England. In the selection, Edmund Ludlow criticize about the new models of government. Cromwell dislikes the idea of new models of government because he feel the new models of government would destroy the power. Also, Ludlow criticizes about Cromwell’s power is being abused too much, so he feels that the nation should governed by its own. Cromwell’s responded that the government
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
After King Charles I’s execution in January 1649, Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) became Lord Protector of the country. Oliver Cromwell was ruler of the country, with assistant of parliament from 25 December 1653, until his death, when his son Richard Cromwell took power. Cromwell wasn’t the king of the three kingdoms (England, Scotland and Ireland), but he had similar power. Over history it has been disputed whether he was a heroic, powerful saviour for the country, or an evil psychopath who took what they wanted. I have been looking at which one I believe that Cromwell was; a hero or a villain.
The understanding of the state of nature is essential to both theorists’ discussions. For Hobbes, the state of nature is equivalent to a state of war. Locke’s description of the state of nature is more complex: initially the state of nature is one of “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation”. Transgressions against the law of nature, or reason which “teaches mankind that all being equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possessions,” are but few. The state of nature, according to Locke’s Treatise, consists of the society of man, distinct from political society, live together without any superior authority to restrict and judge their actions. It is when man begins to acquire property that the state of nature becomes somewhat less peaceful.
These differences affect the livelihood and happiness of people. Hobbes wanted a government to prevent chaos and anarchy as he saw all men were selfish after his experience with the Civil War, while Locke wanted a government to protect everyone’s natural rights. Hobbes Monarch with an absolute ruler, Is different than Locke’s idea of a constitutional government. Hobbes absolute ruler theory forced people to behave themselves, and protected them from killing each other, Locke’s constitutional theory protected their lives, their liberty, and their property. These are different because, while Locke agrees with protecting peoples lives such as Hobbes did, he also believed more than just lives should be protected. Another difference between Hobbes and Locke was their belief if power should be limited. Since Hobbes believed in an absolute ruler, and his idea of government formed a Monarchy, the people were to give up their sovereignty for their own good to the absolute ruler. This gave the absolute ruler unlimited power, which prevented the people from over throwing him. While Locke’s idea of government, which was formed to aid the protection of peoples natural rights and not only to protect themselves from one another, limited the power of the government and gave people the right to over throw the government if they failed to protect their natural rights. Their
Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists that believe in how the people should have certain rights with allows them to have individual freedom. They also believe that the people must give consent in order for the government to work and progress. Although Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have similar aspects in their theories, they differ from each other through the reason why a government should be created.