Question 1 – Explain Filmer’s and Hobbes’ arguments for absolute monarchy – why should we have monarchies, and why should they be given absolute power? What are Locke’s arguments against absolutism? [600 words]
Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes were two of the biggest proponents for absolute monarchy of their generation. While both were in favor of absolutism as well as total control given to the respective sovereign, the basis of their reasoning differs fundamentally. Robert Filmer claimed that absolute monarchy comes from the patriarchal rule, sanctioned by God himself. Filmer believes Adam was the first patriarch, and was given authority over his children, with each successive family following this sort of tier system(FIlmer 6-7). Accordingly, Filmer recognizes that families and towns will eventually grow, making it difficult to trace or decide lineage of the original patriarch, and in these situations, patriarchs may come together and decide on a sovereign. Filmer says that this decision is not really a decision of the people, but rather one of the “universal” patriarch, God himself(Filmer 11). Filmer uses this patriarchal tier system as his justification for absolute monarchy, as this is what God prescribed when giving Adam and succeeding patriarchs authority over their respective families. Monarchs should be given absolute power because it is the will of God in being granted authority as a patriarch, and citizens are essentially descendants of this patriarch, so it is their god-given duty to obey. Additionally, the Sovereign is bound by divine law and law of previous ruling patriarchs, and those who disobey will be rightfully punished harshly by God(Filmer 11).
While Filmer argues for Absolutism on the basis of God, Thomas Hobbes, another absolutist proponent, argues this idea as an alternative to the “state of nature” in which man lived in before organized government. This state of nature was one of instability, and full of anarchy, as men are naturally self-interested(Hobbes 112). Hobbes believes that governments were formed to begin with to bring stability to this state of nature. The sovereign and the people have a sort of contract ensuring security and protection, and this security may only be achieved through total obedience to the sovereign(Hobbes Chap. 30). In obeying the sovereign, the people are in theory obeying themselves. The sovereign is the sole legislator, and it is the people’s contractual duty to obey(Hobbes 176). Hobbes recognizes that a sovereign may make decisions unfavorable to some; however, the people must abide by these decisions, as their outcomes are undoubtedly more favorable than man returning to a warring state as he believes man lived in prior to established government(Hobbes 138,144).
On another end of the political spectrum, John Locke and his Second Treatise of Government directly refute the pro-absolutist arguments made by Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes. At the end of the first chapter of this work, Locke establishes political power as an institution bearing far greater responsibilities than either of his predecessors believed. Political power was neither the will of god, nor was it simply the means for man to have security from a barbaric and competitive state of nature. Rather, Locke relates political power to lawmaking, property rights, and defense, all for the well-being of the public(Locke 101). Locke further grants every man a set of rights, including life, liberty, health, and one’s possessions(Locke 102). Absolutist proponents granted members of society no such rights. Locke goes further, repeatedly stressing the importance of common laws as well as the legislature, and implies they are the most important means of ensuring safety and security of the commonwealth(123-124, 158). The ideologies John Locke lays out in his Second Treatise clearly contradict those of his predecessors, making absolute rule incompatible with the civil society he advocated for.
Question 2 – Select two of Machiavelli, Rousseau, and Mill. Why do these authors believe that all people, and not just the elite, should participate in government? [600 words]
Jean Jacques Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, and their respective works which will be drawn from, both explicitly argue for political rights of members of society. That being said, their philosophies are also contradictory. Rousseau like other philosophers talks about a state of nature, which has evolved to be one full of self-interest. In order for man within a community to realize his natural freedoms, all persons must come together and form a social contract as he calls it. In it, no person is above another, and all will therefore make unanimous decisions with the best interests of society in mind, what he calls the general will(Rousseau 50-51). Full Participation in government(i.e. voting) will allow for the people themselves to be the authors of the laws that govern them, and likewise obey them willingly. The goal of government is the common good of all, which Rousseau argues is reached only through following the general will of the public made possible by active participation in government(Rousseau 57-58). Rosseau is concerned with protecting the freedom of all people in society, making any sort of state government by just the elite or single person incompatible with the general will he lays out. In discussing laws, Rousseau notes that laws are only applicable concerning the good of all people, not any one individual or group.(Rousseau 66-67). He speaks highly of human nature and alludes to outside interests being the corrupting factors in previous societies. Following the general will of the people will esure civil liberty is protected. While for Rousseau democracy is clearly the only type of government in which the sovereign collective can function properly, he goes further by dispelling the idea of representative democracy which he believes to be a form of laziness; humans “enslave” themselves to representatives who in turn decide the freedom of all. Rosseau seems to believe that direct democracy is the only option(Rousseau 113-115).
Another philosopher, John Stuart Mill, too argues for full participation in government by the common man(and woman), albeit with different reasoning than his predecessor Rousseau. Mill begins his chapter on representative democracy by directly codemnig despotism, arguing that no matter how effective the despot, absolute power means citizens are passive in decisions of the highest importance, those directly affecting the wellbeing of the population. Mill believes society functions best when citizens do not depend on others to make decisions for them, and their personal intelligence is free to evolve(Mill, Representative Democracy 65). Because of this, democracy, is best suited for society, as despotism would suppress these ideals. Mill goes against Rousseau in arguing for representative democracy. Nations are too populous for direct democracy to function effectively. Representative democracy requires every citizen to participate in government, albeit on a more limited basis, and fosters knowledge development amongst citizens. (Mill, Representative Democracy 67). In his writing On Liberty, Mill discusses the individual and the role of government in daily life. While Rousseau seems to put a greater focus on the general will of the public and majority, Mill focuses more on individualism. For Mill, defaulting to general will is a restriction on the freedom of the people and their individualism. A healthy government must have difference of opinion without pressure to conform to any one ideology, even if it is the opinion of the majority. Considering new and even unpopular ideas is vital for societal growth. This makes sense, as historically many discoveries valid today once began as radical and unpopular ideas. Rousseau’s general will concept, Mill would likely argue, would lead to a tyranny of the majority in which minority voices and freedoms are oppressed.
2019-3-4-1551689280