The late sixteen-hundreds were a time of absolute monarchies, budding representative governments, and revolution (the Revolution in 1688 in particular). The people of this time, of course, had opinions about the ways things should be done and what kind of government should, and could, really work for the people. Even the idea of the government being a system that ultimately should work for the benefit of the people was a point of conflict in some circles. Two examples of men with strong opinions about absolutism were Bishop Jaques-Bénigne Bossuet, Louis XIV’s court preacher and tutor to Louis XIV’s son, and John Locke, arguably the most prominent English philosopher in his day. While Bossuet and Locke differed greatly in their views of what …show more content…
This is not to say that Locke did not defend his opinion with religion, because he did, but he was more logistical than Bossuet was on this particular matter. John Locke wrote his second Treatise of Civil Government in the year 1690 which advocated a smaller government ruled by the people and for the people. He believed that the governed should be the focal point in government, and without them as such the government cannot feasibly function. This is why one of the points he made was that in an absolute government where the monarchy has all the power, it is logically improbable that there will be any way that the people are capable of making just appeals, and that indeed, there will not even be impartial judges if the king is the sole judge. He called the idea of absolutism uncivilized, based on his stance that we are born with the right to unbridled freedom, which in his opinion would have been a redundant statement, because as Locke expressed, bridle the people (from governing themselves) and they cannot be free by definition! He made himself clear: men are equal, so even though Bossuet defended his ideas with the Bible, to John Locke, Bossuet’s ideas were unbiblical, because an absolutist government favors the king above all men, and “God is no respecter of persons,” (Acts
John Locke, Rousseau, and Napoleon all have very different views on what would make a good society. Locke uses a democracy/republican type view that many countries still model after today. Locke’s view on a happy society is the most open and kind to its people, out of the three. Rousseau takes the complete opposite stance from Locke in thinking a more dictatorship government would be what is best for society as a whole as what is good for one person is good for one’s society. Napoleon plays by his own rules with telling people he will follow Lockean like views only to really want to be an absolutist government under his own power. However, all of their ideas would work for a given society so long as they had a set of laws in place and citizens
During the Age of Absolutism, views of how government should have been run were drastically different that the views of Enlightenment thinkers. The fundamental difference between these two views of government – absolutism and Enlightenment – was that, in an absolute view of government, it stated that it should be run by a monarch – such as a king or a queen – and that he or she should have complete and unquestionable authority over everything, whereas the Enlightenment resulted in the development of new ideas, many of which criticized absolute monarchies, such as the idea that the fundamental function of government was to protect it's people's rights. The Enlightenment thinkers all had different ideas, and all to varying degrees, but the main theme is that all of their ideas criticized absolutism (except for Hobbes) and resulted in the gradual rejection of it.
John Locke, an English philosophe, like many other philosophes of his time worked to improve society by advocating for the individual rights of people. John Locke strongly believed in more rights for the people and was against oppression. In his book, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke stated, “(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions . . .” (Document A). Locke means every man is naturally equal, no one was created better and he has certain guaranteed rights. This helps society because it would deny a monarch to strip a person of their guaranteed rights and it would make the monarch less powerful and his/her power would be given to the people. The greatest change to government Locke states as necessary, “(W)hen the government is dissolved [ended], the people are at liberty to provide themselves, by erecting a new legislative [lawma...
Jacques Boussuet and John Locke are two people that had a say and feeling of the creation of modern ideas of political authority. French bishop, Jacque Bossuet, focused on arguing in favor of the idea of the divine right of the kings, but also more generally for the majesty of the prince. John Locke, assets that human beings are born with an “uncontrolled enjoyment of all rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man.
The Founding Fathers of the United States relied heavily on many of the principles taught by John Locke. Many of the principles of Locke’s Second Treatise of Government may easily be discovered in the Declaration of Independence with some minor differences in wording and order. Many of the ideas of the proper role of government, as found in the Constitution of the United States, may be discovered in the study of Locke. In order to understand the foundation of the United States, it is vital that one studies Locke. A few ideas from Hume may be found but the real influence was from Locke. Rousseau, on the other hand, had none.
Locke believed that the role of the government was to protect property and resolve disputes through administrative justice or by creating legislation. The government would be created through the consent of the people. Locke believed that freedom in the state was “having the liberty to order and use your property and to be free from the arbitrary will of another.” No one person can claim divine right to rule, because there is no way to determine if that person is actually divine or not. If government is not fulfilling their duty, the people have a right to overthrow it (i.e. revolution; was a major influence for American revolutionaries). For Locke, law is enlightening and liberating to humans. “law manifests what’s good for everybody.” The key reason for political society is for men to improve land. Locke believes men have mutual interest in coming together to protect land. Men must enter an agreement because there are a few bad apples, though not everyone is bad. If these few apples can be dealt with, their impact can be
In 21st century, liberalism has been the centered political philosophy while Marxism has great influence as well in the political arena. This creates a question whether these ideas can be coexist or they stay on different pole, thus, it is necessary to compare the argument of John Locke and Karl Marx under the context of liberalism. This can be done through the reexamine their writing, such as “The Second Treatise of Government” and “Das Capital”, in addition with other scholars’ works. As a result, Locke and Marx shared a lot of similarities on the idea of liberalism, in fact, the argument of Marx can be said rooted from Locke. Their ideas are still applicable which they actually complementing each other, trying to justify
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
During the 17th and 18th centuries, absolute monarchies were dominating in European countries. National governments became more centralized and local power and autonomy became more powerful. This rise in power of the monarchy and national government was referred to as the Age of Absolutism. These absolute monarchies began to rise as a result of the violent wars of religion during the Reformation and the increase of power among kings. With the aristocracy dominating in the 17th century, it was difficult to administer the state without directly taking power out of their hands. The basis of absolutism included aristocracy, national churches in which kings had the divine right, bureaucracy, standing armies, and fancy ceremonies. At the expense of freedom, absolutism was able to establish order. Despite this, Niccolò Machiavelli, a well-known Italian historian, philosopher, politician, and author, defended absolutism. He argued for order executed by the prince in the best interest of the people. Machiavelli was influential during a time when political conditions were unstable, prompting him to come to the conclusion that people were naturally irrational and unreliable. Absolutism eventually declined in power when the Enlightenment was introduced. The Enlightenment formed as a result of the Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution and undermined absolutism. Differing from the Age of Absolutism, people were regarded as rational and logical beings during this “Age of Reason.” As a result of the Enlightenment, two important philosophers emerged: John Locke and Karl Marx. John Locke, a political scientist and philosopher, was regarded as the founder of the Enlightenment. He advocated ideas of human rights and equality and challen...
Have you ever heard of the Enlightenment era in history? It was a significant period in time where people started to have new ideas in technology, science, politics, and philosophy. The Enlightenment also brought about a lot of memorable thinkers who still continue to influence us today. Among those thinkers included the very wise John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. John Locke was an excellent Enlightenment philosopher who actually influenced Thomas Jefferson’s writings for the Declaration of Independence. Their writings helped to create the unity in America, and justify the break from Great Britain. As a result, together these two famous philosophers helped our country become independent with the Declaration
... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (??)the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government. Both Rousseau and Locke formulated new and innovative ideas for government that would change the way people thought of how sovereignty should be addressed forever.
In a state of nature, each man, as the possessor of reason and free will, is cognitively independent and equal, and so, by implication, politically independent and equal (Braman 07). Locke knew that men were there own learning tools within themselves. Not only did they learn from there mistakes, which was known for centuries, but, they also grew from one another and took what they needed for there own well mental development (Braman 09) Just like mankind has been doing for as long as anyone can remember, they have been working there owns ways of life out for themselves and to learn from one another and not from someone or something telling you how you should be living.
Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke are all great thinkers who were greatly influential in forming philosophies that would affect the future of politics. By analyzing each philosopher’s ideology, we can identify which thinker’s theory reflected modern era liberalism the most. For this paper I will be arguing that, John Locke provides a more compelling framework of modern era liberalism because of his perception of the state of nature, the social contract and the function of government.
Machiavelli believed that, ethics and morality were considered in other categories than those generally known. He does not deny the existence of, but did not see how they can be useful in its traditional sense as in politics and in the government of the people. According to Machiavelli, a man is by nature a political angry and fearful. Machiavelli had no high opinion of the people. It is assumed that a person is forced to be good and can get into the number of positive features, such as prudence and courage. The prince can only proceed gently and with love, because that would undermine the naivety of his rule, and hence and the well-being of the state. He thought that, the Lord must act morally as far as possible, immorally to the extent to
During the enlightenment era, rebellious scholars called philosophers brought new ideas on how to understand and envision the world from different views. Although, each philosopher had their own minds and ideas, they all wanted to improve society in their own unique ways. Two famous influential philosophers are Francis Bacon and John Locke. Locke who is an empiricism, he emphasizes on natural observations. Descartes being a rationalist focus more on innate reasons. However, when analyze the distinguished difference between both Locke and Descartes, it can be views towards the innate idea concepts, the logic proof god’s existence, and the inductive/deductive methods. This can be best demonstrate using the essays, “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”