What Makes a Political Authority Legitimate?

2040 Words5 Pages

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from the state of nature. Finally, the theorist’s versions of political authority will be described and whether or not these authorities are in fact legitimate. The state of nature is a hypothetical state that provides a foundation of the legitimacy of the political authority for without a state of nature, man would not need a political authority. Within this state of nature all men are at liberty. The state of nature differs for each of the theorist. Hobbes’ state of nature is that of a state of war. Hobbes’ outlines that humans are unsociable, rational creatures who are all equal to each other in terms of mind and strength. This prevents any hierarchy forming naturally as the weakest can kill the strongest. Furthermore, all men have the right to everything and anything as well as having equal opportunity to reach their goals. This is then where conflict arises – as when two men desire the same end, both will engage in war since there is no one to stop them. Hobbes outlines three causes of disputes: ... ... middle of paper ... ...ws the people to hold that political authority to account, making sure the authority does best by its people. In conclusion, Locke’s account of a legitimate political authority is the most persuasive in comparison to Hobbes and Rousseau. Locke’s state of nature does not paint a simplistic view of humans such as the other theorists who saw humans as being unsociable or the everyone would feel the same level of fear or compassion. Furthermore, Locke’s reasoning that comes from the state of nature as it solves the problems in his version of the state of nature – Rousseau’s reasoning is vague whilst Hobbes’ problems still continue. Finally, Locke’s authority allows for greater freedoms and also for rebellion possible without placing man back within the state of nature. Works Cited Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Rousseau Social Contract John Locke Two Treatis of Government

Show More
Related

  • The Influence of Locke and Hobbes on Government

    1741 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thomas Hobbes believes that the optimal form of authority is one that has absolute power over its people, consisting of just one person who will retain the exclusive ability to oversee and decide on all of society’s issues. This Sovereign will be constituted by a social contract with the people. With that, the Sovereign will hold all of the citizens’ rights, and will be permitted to act in whichever way he or she deems necessary. The philosopher comes to this conclusion with deductive reasoning, utilizing a scientific method with straightforward arguments to prove his point.

    Read More

  • Human Nature as Viewed by Thomas Hobbes and David Hume

    1952 Words  | 4 Pages

    Hobbes views human nature as the war of each man against each man. For Hobbes, the essence of human nature can be found when we consider how man acts apart from any government or order. Hobbes describes the world as “a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man.” (Hobbes mp. 186) In such a world, there are “no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” (Hobbes mp. 186) Hobbes believes that laws are what regulate us from acting in the same way now. He evidences that our nature is this way by citing that we continue to lock our doors for fear of theft or harm. Hobbes gives a good argument which is in line with what we know of survivalism, and evidences his claim well. Hobbes claims that man is never happy in having company, unless that company is utterly dominated. He says, “men have no pleasure, (but on the contrary a great dea...

    Read More

  • It Is The Preoccupation With Abust, By Karl Hobbes

    878 Words  | 2 Pages

    Hobbes, as one of the early political philosophers, believes human has the nature to acquire “power after power” and has three fundamental interests which are safety, “conjugal affections”, and riches for commodious lives. (Hobbes, p108, p191) From this basis, Hobbes deducts that in a state of nature, human tends to fight against each other (state of war) to secure more resources (Hobbes,

    Read More

  • John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

    1073 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both believe that men are equal in the state of nature, but their individual opinions about equality lead them to propose fundamentally different methods of proper civil governance. Locke argues that the correct form of civil government should be concerned with the common good of the people, and defend the citizenry’s rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. Hobbes argues that the proper form of civil government must have an overarching ruler governing the people in order to avoid the state of war. I agree with Locke’s argument because it is necessary for a civil government to properly care for its citizens, which in turn prevents the state of war from occurring in society. 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. This is because doing so would create a state of war in and of itself.

    Read More

  • Political Science Final Exam

    758 Words  | 2 Pages

    Locke believes that state of nature is pre-political but at the same time it is not pre-moral. He believes that everyone i...

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.

    Read More

  • The State of Nature: Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury

    1681 Words  | 4 Pages

    In this essay, I will present three reasons as to why the absolute authority of the sovereign in Hobbes’s state of nature and social contract is justified. The three reasons Hobbes uses are: the argument from contract, the argument from authorisation and the argument from weakness of mixed or divided sovereignty. Firstly, I shall explain Hobbes’s understanding of human nature and the natural condition of humanity which causes the emergence of the social contract. I shall then analyse each argument for the absolute authority of the sovereign being justified. I shall then consider possible objections to Hobbes’s argument. I shall then show why Hobbes’s argument is successful and the absolute authority of the sovereign is justified.

    Read More

  • Bodin And Thomas Hobbes: Protection Vs. Prerogative

    1019 Words  | 3 Pages

    In more ways than one John Locke’s idea of executive prerogative reflects the ideas of both Bodin and Hobbes in regards to reverting back to monarchy and dictatorship in time of crisis. One of the main ways these ideas are similar is that they both suggest that in a time of need, people in society make act outside of the law without fear of consequences. John Locke argues that this should only happen on the occasion that it is for the means of the public good while Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, especially Hobbes, seem to fight more for protection of the mass society. For example in the event that a non-monarchic state is threatened, the government would go back to that organized state to protect itself.

    Read More

  • Political Philosophy

    1755 Words  | 4 Pages

    Aristotle, Locke, and Hobbes all place a great deal of importance on the state of nature and how it relates to the origin of political bodies. Each one, however, has a different conception of what a natural state is, and ultimately, this leads to a different conception of what a government should be, based on this natural state. Aristotle’s feelings on the natural state of man is much different than that of modern philosophers and leads to a construction of government in and of itself; government for Hobbes and Locke is a departure from the natural state of man.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2134 Words  | 5 Pages

    Hobbes and Rousseau created a revolutionary idea of the state of nature. They did not believe government should be organized through the church, therefore abandoning the idea of the divine right theory, where power of the king came directly from God. Starting from a clean slate, with no organized church, Hobbes and Rousseau needed a construct on what to build society on. The foundation of society began with the original state of nature. Hobbes’ perception of the original state of nature is what would exist if there were no common power to execute and enforce the laws to restrain individuals. In this case, the laws of the jungle would prevail: only the fittest survive. Man’s desires are insatiable. Since resources are scarce, humankind is naturally competitive, inevitably creating jealousy and hatred, which eventually leads to war.

    Read More

  • Individual Liberty: Thomas Hobbes and John Rawls

    2100 Words  | 5 Pages

    ����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all dealt with the issue of political freedom within a society. John Locke's “The Second Treatise of Government”, Mill's “On Liberty”, and Rousseau’s “Discourse On The Origins of Inequality” are influential and compelling literary works which while outlining the conceptual framework of each thinker’s ideal state present divergent visions of the very nature of man and his freedom. The three have somewhat different views regarding how much freedom man ought to have in political society because they have different views regarding man's basic potential for inherently good or evil behavior, as well as the ends or purpose of political societies.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan and John Locke's Second Treatise of Government

    3013 Words  | 7 Pages

    Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

    1044 Words  | 3 Pages

    A state of nature is a hypothetical state of being within a society that defines such a way that particular community behaves within itself. English philosopher Thomas Hobbes proclaimed that, “A state of nature is a state of war.” By this, Hobbes means that every human being, given the absence of government or a contract between other members of a society, would act in a war-like state in which each man would be motivated by desires derived solely with the intention of maximizing his own utility.

    Read More

  • Power & Authority

    410 Words  | 1 Pages

    Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.

    Read More

More about What Makes a Political Authority Legitimate?

Open Document