Comparing Locke, Montesquieu, And Rousseau

In comparing Thomas Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, The Declaration of Independence, and U.S. Constitution, it is evident that the basis of all three documents is the idea that all human beings possess God-given fundamental rights and that government is created to protect those rights. The Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, is the first of the three documents penned. This is important because it defined the rights of liberty and equality of all American citizens as outlined in John Locke’s natural law thesis (Martin, page 113). In addition to providing an itemized account of the grievances colonist’s held against King George III of England, it served to justify the colonist’s quest for independence and separation from British rule. The Declaration of Independence conveyed to the crown that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, which among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Founders’ of the New World understood that their pursuit of liberties and autonomy specified in the Declaration of Independence could not come to fruition without instituting decrees. In 1787, the U.S. Constitution, was written to replace the Articles of Confederation with a better defined series of stringent laws that would legally uphold the freedoms and privileges established in the Declaration of Independence. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in

The views that Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau hold on topics of government, religion, and various types of psychology based traits are not examined as one being of higher preference but as their contribution to purposeful thought and deliberation on the matters. All three philosophers have biblical backgrounds for their beliefs but there is no right or wrong answer when compared amongst each other. There are many of Hobbes views that seem to fit into societies beliefs today and provide reassurance that his opinions could be more realistic in terms of government and human nature. Overall, there is many concepts to discuss before choosing one philosopher to be most biblically or scripturally correct. However, I personally don’t feel that there is one that is more correct among the others because the views that each hold on so many topics don’t fit perfectly into my own opinions and the opinions I feel I receive from the Bible. I will discuss each opinion in full detail and provide the philosopher who I feel best fits scripturally in regards to each topic once narrowed down further.

On June of 1776, the Declaration of Independence was born. Drawn up by Thomas Jefferson and based on the works of John Locke, the general purpose of the document was to clarify that governments have conditional, not absolute authority over the people; that human beings possess natural rights that can’t be taken from them and government is created to protect those rights. The phrases “unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and “all men are created equal” were the main theme of the social contract written for the small colonies of what would be the basis of the United States of America to declare independence from Great Britain and its tyrannical king. However, “unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and “all men are created equal” did not apply to African Americans, enslaved or free for the coming years.

In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He says, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.

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.

The Declaration of Independence uses many of the beliefs that are central to Locke’s Two Treaties of Government, which are all still very important to us today. Beliefs such as all people are equal, their natural rights, and the government’s role in its citizens lives was the foundation to building the United States the world knows today. The focal points in their two documents are almost exactly the same; Locke emphasizes people’s natural rights in the statement “that being all equal and independent, no one ought to hurt ones life, liberty, or property", while Jefferson highlights them by saying “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness." It is commonly speculated that Jefferson’s first draft of Declaration of Independence actually copied Locke verbatim by saying “life, liberty, and property”, rather than “pursuit of happiness”. While this has never been proven, it shows how Jefferson utilized Locke’s ideas.

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

Montesquieu, a philosopher who lived in France during the reign of absolute monarchs, experienced the unjust division of political power between the wealthy nobles and king living in Versailles and the citizens of the third estate. He believed that instead of an absolute monarchy, political power should be divided between three branches of government, the legislative, executive, and judicial, with a system of checks and balances to ensure that one group would not overpower the others. (Doc. 3) Montesquieu’s ideas would become the basis of the United States’ government and serve as an inspiration to the French third estate to support the decline of absolute monarchies. Another French philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who wrote The Social Contract in 1762 during the reign of French monarchs, stated that absolute authority removes the natural rights of humanity. (Doc. 5) As a firm believer of individual freedoms, Rousseau explained that a leader must gain the citizens’ consent to rule, as all citizens are equal due to logic and reasoning. Like Montesquieu, Rousseau’s ideas would inspire the French to overthrow its monarch during their revolution. His reasoning encouraged the French to accept a democratic government, where citizens elect a leader to rule them, unlike before where monarchs inherited political power. Frederick II,

The Enlightenment saw many great thinkers, but maybe no other individuals had a greater impact on Western political development than John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Locke and Rousseau, at the core of their arguments, believed that mankind creates a social contract within society. However, Rousseau and Locke differ in their exact view of the social contract, but both agree that some individual rights must be sacrificed for the good of mankind, and that before there was society man lived in a state of nature. Their different interpretations of these two points largely describes the differences between the two men, clearly from similar time frames, from a similar geographical space, but who collaborate inadvertently with each other to help establish core Western political philosophies.

He believed that all men were equal by nature, and that we must consider, “all men are naturally in… a state of personal freedom,” explicating that nature allows all to be free. He also says all humankind are deserving of the same rights and equality despite of who they may be, saying, “Creatures of the same species and rank… should also be equal…” In addition, Locke elaborated on his beliefs that people should be involved in their government. He states, “When the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for themselves by erecting a new legislative,” suggesting legislative and executive branches of government.

Starting with the enlightenment the importance of the two enlightenment thinkers locke and Montesquieu where two very different thinkers in human rights. John lock developed an entirely different notion of the basic nature of mankind, which he saw as innately good. While attending Oxford in 1666, he became friends with the first Eral of Shaftesbery, and in 1679, Eral was implicated in plots against King Charles the second, Locke was also suspected. He fled to the Netherlands, where he me Prince William and Princess Mary. But Lockes over all goal was to show that people where naturally good. On the other hand Montesquieu was different than Locke Montesquieu beleaved that all humans where inharatably evil and had to make good thuout there lives, that they are born a free man but where chains.

The government is thought to exist for many reasons. One key reason is that they create rules which people should follow to keep a controlled population in order. In the 1600s European philosophers were arguing on who should run a govern nation. The philosophers argued for different kinds of democracy in a government. The philosophers are John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Over the span of centuries, the ideas and philosophies of three philosophers have arguably foreseen the current state of American politics. These three great minds; John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes can arguably be visionaries when it comes to the political ideology landscape. From each individual view on the sovereign and the state of nature, each philosopher can be compared and contrasted to explore their views. In this paper, the reader will attempt to have some sort of understanding in each of these two subjects. Even though this paper will barely scratch the surface. It will lead to a mental understanding of the topics as well as a mental understanding of the three books by each of these great men.

When it comes to the topic of the state of nature, most of us will readily agree that Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s view of the topic has influenced the foundation of the political society. Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of which theory of the state of nature is correct. All three philosophers agree that the main concern of man is self-preservation, but perceived the details of the state of nature differently.

While Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau are all social contract theorists, each of their views on the State of Nature possess different outlooks. The idea of law and liberty fluctuate between each theorist, and what is the true about the natural state of man. Whether men should be acting on their instincts or with reason, whether there is justice or not, and the level of importance that the common good of the whole hold in their views differentiates themselves from one another.