Locke Vs Rousseau
Throughout the history of the world, philosophers have been discussing concerning the human nature. Starting in the 1600s, European philosophers began debating the question of the ideal form of the state. Among those thinkers were the philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau who all differ in the manner in which they view the ideal form of the state. Hobbes believed the power of the monarch should be absolute in order to maintain peace in the state, whereas Locke believed that government existed only to protect its people and to allow them to have right to life, liberty, and property, however, Rousseau believed in an individual freedom and direct democracy. This paper will further discuss the ideal form of the state
…show more content…
Unlike Thomas Hobbes who believed humans were self-absorbed, sought for their own benefits, motivated by pursued of pleasure, avoidance of pain and fear of death, John Locke believed that humans are a social animal, had a mutual duty toward one another, and had a natural ability to improve themselves. He favored this because he lived through relatively peaceful Glorious Revolution. The idea of an absolute monarchy was not reflected in Locke’s opinion, but instead, Locke argued that natural rights such as life, liberty, and property existed in the state of nature should never be taken away or even willingly given up by individuals. According to him, the monarch cannot hold an absolute power but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. If a monarch violated these rights, the social contract will void, and the people had the right to revolt. This conforms when he mentioned, “every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature” (Locke, Of Civil Government, 168). Locke believed that citizens should be allowed to overthrow a government whenever they believe that the government is no longer capable of fulfilling its task at protecting the citizen's natural rights, which Locke believed was the sole purpose of government. Locke also disagreed with Hobbes about the social contract, for him, it was not just an agreement among the people, but between people and the monarch, and the natural rights of individuals limited the power of the monarch according to Locke. These rights are the privileges to which humans are entitled by Sovereign (God) himself, Locke
Unlike Thomas Hobbes who believed humans were self-absorbed, sought for their own benefits, motivated by pursued of pleasure, avoidance of pain and fear of death, John Locke believed that humans are a social animal, had a mutual duty toward one another, and had a natural ability to improve themselves. He favored this because he lived through relatively peaceful Glorious Revolution. The idea of an absolute monarchy was not reflected in Locke’s opinion, but instead, Locke argued that natural rights such as life, liberty, and property existed in the state of nature should never be taken away or even willingly given up by individuals. According to him, the monarch cannot hold an absolute power but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people. If a monarch violated these rights, the social contract will void, and the people had the right to revolt. This conforms when he mentioned, “every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature” (Locke, Of Civil Government, 168). Locke believed that citizens should be allowed to overthrow a government whenever they believe that the government is no longer capable of fulfilling its task at protecting the citizen's natural rights, which Locke believed was the sole purpose of government. Locke also disagreed with Hobbes about the social contract, for him, it was not just an agreement among the people, but between people and the monarch, and the natural rights of individuals limited the power of the monarch according to Locke. These rights are the privileges to which humans are entitled by Sovereign (God) himself, Locke