Upon exposure under a modern viewpoint, with the benefit of hindsight to assist, the philosophies of Plato and Thomas Hobbes fall under an unequivocal category of judgment on how governments must run - specifically, that of complete authoritarianism. Throughout their lives, they pandered to delusions of assurance and refuge in absolute totalitarianism, with an insufficient amount of compelling evidence to bolster their assertions. Ordinarily, the enlightenment of enfranchisement in major countries like the United States should have abolished and denounced the ideologies indefinitely. Nevertheless, the philosophers and the administrative conceptions they supported receive unparalleled acclaim across the globe. Moreover, the doctrines still …show more content…
Regarding what system of government should rule, the pair of philosophers advocate for tyrannical tyrannies, with Plato’s being the Assembly, controlled by the guardians, and with Hobbes the sovereign regulating others. On the discussion of the morality of society, the logicians believe in the overlord 's determine right and wrong for everyone, and discipline based on their convictions. As for the role of the individual, Plato and Hobbes reject the significance of subjectivity, despite Hobbes’ declarations of such. And just as Plato’s philosophies indirectly influenced Hobbes ' ideals of legislature, the concepts of authoritarian dominion still persuade the institutions of the world …show more content…
Throughout history, totalitarian upon totalitarian seeks complete dominion over a commonality, and obtain encouragement from doctrines suggesting that only absolutism and consequentialism will achieve peace and order in the world. Unfortunately, even the powers-at-be who reject the concepts of tyranny embrace the constriction of liberty for the sake of security. But in the end, the guardians and sovereigns of the world will always arise. Ultimately, those who defend freedom and liberty must step up and defend their natural
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.
Locke’s belief in “consent” by the people creates a democratic structure of community. In this way, the community is merely created to protect the rights and the property of the people. His idealistic government would have the power controlled by those who are being ruled, the people. Locke explains that we must “make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest” (Locke 101).The government is a reflection of the “majority” of the community, and will represent the wishes of the people. The power is held by those who are being ruled, and they have equal rights in deciding their political outcomes. Locke explains that “wherever law ends, tyranny begins”, so once the rights of the people are suppressed this injustice begins (Locke 102). Locke also explains that if a government was to act unjust, not with the best interest of the majority, then it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow “tyranny” (Locke 102). The people, who have the power, should always defend their human rights, especially from unlawful rulers. This view of government shifts with Hobbes’ perspective. Hobbes believes that one man should rule the community, and therefore the government should have power in the ruler rather than the people being ruled. This single ruler will be educated about the corrupt nature of mankind and the bad nature of
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
Howe, Irving, and George Orwell. 1984 Revisited Totalitarianism in Our Century. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.
Therefore, their ideal systems of government have little in common in regards to how they operate. Although, one similarity that the two political theories do have is the critical need for some type of organization of the state. Both writers clearly recognize that society cannot exist without any government at all. (both realize that without a hierarchy for plato…. And for hobbes…. ) Moreover, both Plato and Hobbes go on to propose that a strong figure of authority is necessary to maintain control within a state. Their utopias also agree in the fact that if individuals obtain more than just their basic needs of life, disorder in the society would arise. Since both agree that people tend to naturally deviate towards greed, they both acknowledge the need for a ruling body that holds power over the rest of its citizens. However, the process of developing an ideal figure of authority, differ in various
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.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
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.
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
John Locke, Alexis de Tocqueville and Karl Marx are theorist living in different time periods and in different countries and so their vision of how tyranny can come about differs. While they all can agree that tyranny infringes on freedom, they do not agree on the strategies for resistance. These thinkers foresaw abuses of authority and so each developed mechanisms to stop the abuse on power.
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.
In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke were two English philosophers who were very similar thinkers. They both studies at Oxford, and they both witnessed the civil Revolution. The time when they lived in England influenced both of their thoughts as the people were split into two groups, those whom though the king should have absolute power, and the other half whom thought people could govern themselves. However Hobbes and Locke both rejected the idea of divine right, such as there was no one person who had the right from God to rule. They both believed in the dangers of state of nature, they thought without a government there is more chance of war between men. However their theories differ, Hobbes theories are based on his hypothetical ideas of the state
Different schools of thought have generated arguments since the beginning of civilization. They represent different perspectives of every part of life, whether its religion or politics. The realist school and the humanist perspectives offer people different views in many different aspects.