The Second Treatise On Civil Government And State Of Nature

Firstly, he argues that the "Care of Souls" cannot be entrusted to a Magistrate more than any other man.  People are individually responsible for their own salvation, and no man has been given a natural authority over another man's salvation.  After all, according to the dominant religious traditions, all men are equal in the eyes of God.  Even in the absence of natural authority, one cannot even confer an artificial authority to a Magistrate.  Why?  Because salvation is an individual responsibility.  But what if the Magistrate were to enact a law contrary to religious belief?  In such a case, civil obedience would mean hypocrisy - and this would be immoral.  One must never be made to choose between religion and state.  Secondly, the Magistracy wields only an outward force, whereas true salvation lies in one's inward resolve.  He writes:  "Such is the nature of the Understanding, that it cannot be compell'd [sic] to the belief of any thing by outward force."2  Moreover, enjoining righteousness is not the monopoly of the Magistracy; it is a right belonging to all people.  Thirdly, Locke argues that with so much disparity between religious opinions, all states would be in conflict.  In such cases, he argues:

The phrase Glorious Revolution was coined to summarize the order of events of 1688-1689 that led to the ousting of Catholic King James II (Miller, 2017). King James II was dethroned as monarch, and replaced by Protestant Queen Mary II and her husband King William III as rulers of England. King James II’s policies on religion had been met with an enormous amount of opposition because of his endorsement of Catholicism (Sowerby, 2013). The Glorious Revolution was coined so as it was bloodless, and it led to the accession of the British Parliament to govern over the crown, and many people have argued that it was more religious than political (Van, 2008). Therefore, this paper will create an outline of the role of religion in the Glorious Revolution.

In the Letter Concerning Toleration, Locke presents the argument of separation of church and the civil magistrate as well as the obligations each one has. He describes the obligations of church by stating, “A church, then, I take to be a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God” and the part of the civil magistrate as “by the impartial execution of equal laws, to secure unto all the people in general and to every one of his subjects in particular the just possession of these things belonging to this life.”

The Two Treatises of Government, more so the Second Treatise of Government, stipulates John Locke's theories on individual rights, and the involvement with the government. He puts them into two groups: natural rights theory and social contract. Natural state is defined as rights that we as people gain before the government comes into play. Social contract is defined as an unofficial, yet somewhat official, agreement that is mutual between everyone in a society to what end they give certain freedoms we have in a natural state up for security; hence, the central government. .

In fewer than forty years apart, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes published works that articulated their respective opinions of what a Social Contract is, where it is derived, and what it protects. In forty years, however, the political climate of England changed drastically. Although Hobbes was writing during the chaotic and bloody English Civil War, and Locke during the Glorious “Bloodless” Revolution, it was more than their antecedent political experiences that shaped their view of how a government should work. In Chapter XIII of Thomas Hobbes’ work, Leviathan, Hobbes sets up of the foundation of how he views Man in a State of Nature with the following string of logical reasoning:

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.

Throughout history there have been numerous political philosophers, and many would agree that John Locke and Thomas Hobbes were the most important of them all. Both of these philosophers had various different theories on what things like a perfect government and a time before government would have been like. Thomas Hobbes tended to lean on the more extreme side of defining humanity, while John Locke had a more peaceful and “humane” idea of the definition of humanity. This essay will be comparing both philosopher’s major theories of the social contract, “The State of Nature,” and the definition of what humans really are.

Between the years 1529-1588 and in the Tudor era, Britain saw perhaps the biggest changes in its political and religious structure in its history. It changed from Catholicism to Protestantism, then back and back again. It also saw major changes in who ran the country, with more involvement from parliament. Different chief ministers (including Thomas Cromwell) had different impacts on Britain and the monarch, and the influence of them will be assessed in this essay.

The writings of Locke on the subject of revolution in his second treatise of government were one of the founding and seminal texts on the “right” of a populace to resist the power of the state if a government was to overstep its defined power and become an unjust tyranny. Kant, however, took what could be labelled a surprising view for a republican and made the denial of the logical and legal coherence of this “right”, as well as the potential harm caused by the rejection of what Kant saw as an individual's moral duty in maintaining the rule of law by the preservation of a government. This essay aims to examine the arguments put forward by both thinkers, draw out their key

A Constitutional Framework: The Relationship of Supreme Power and Individual Rights in the Second Treatise

Locke had undoubtedly aimed to defend ideas that are still being debated today. Rather distinctively, Locke portrays sovereignty as belonging and residing with the people. Unlike Hobbes, we see the state of nature as consisting of equality and there is an existence of natural rights that govern behaviour. Yet, the question is to why a society may need a sovereign if the state of nature was so, arguably, peaceful in the first place. Locke argues that this is because there are bound to be some people infringing others’ rights (‘inconveniences’), which will then need to be sanctioned (Laslett 1988). Also, a state and separate judicial, legislative and executive branches are required to protect private property. If the government ceases to act

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 Second Treatise of Government stipulates John Locke’s claim of what a civil society requires to function. Locke discusses why people leave the state of nature (where they are free, equal and possess natural rights) to form societies: it is convenient. Locke believes everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and property, they are our natural rights. “God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience” (18). When everything belongs to everyone resources aren’t benefiting anyone, that is wasteful and unjust, common resources need to be appropriated. Locke’s view of property is: “every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has a right to body himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his” (19). Locke goes on to discuss the acquisition of private property through mixing labor with common resources to make said resources yours, this theory of property serves as the bases for Locke’s theory of freedom. “That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added, something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private rights” (19). In this paper I will examine how Locke’s view of freedom and theory of property promote and justify economic inequality.

In the State of Nature man is subjected to the unfettered will of his fellow man; checked only by each man’s own reason. For both Locke and Hobbes the State of Nature is an undesirable alternative to compacts established by men, which are called Civil Society, yet each proposes conflicting means and modes by which Civil Societies are to be ordered. Hobbes presents the idea of an absolute monarchical prince, or a Leviathan, which acts outside the rules of civil society in order to ensure the life of men against other men. Locke challenges this form of civil society by presenting his argument for a polity led by a plurality of men subject to their own power and entrusted with power granted by the consent of those submitting to its governance.

In England, 17 century is the time of the fundamental revolution of breakthrough took place and sprung up some influential political thinkers. John Locke is the forefather of liberty while William Godwin was one of the proponent of anarchism, and both of them are great English philosopher after the enlightenment who take significant influence on successors. This essay will focus on the views of Locke and Godwin on the origin and purpose of government, the extent of authority, as well as some opinions according to their flaws.