TRHS AP Euro

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

John Locke: Second Treatise on Government

I also gave you this document in class.

Compare/contrast this document with Hobbes's. Comment on the implications of Locke's ideas.

Due: MIDNIGHT, Tuesday, Oct. 25

posted by RJS at 7:24 AM

7 Comments:

  • Locke's Second Treatise of Government could very well be considered the opposite of Hobbes' Leviathan. Locke regarded each human being as a single individual entity that had the basic natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Hobbes, however, viewed the human being as a curious power grubing machine. Locke's idea of government is that it should exist to further the safety and happiness of a people, and to serve a people, not limit them. Hobbes saw government as a necessary tool to prevent a multitude of internal conflicts from erupting. Locke's ideas imply that to even vaguely attempt an absolute rule would be foolish, and that people in general do not desire conflict.

    By Blogger laura, at Wednesday, October 25, 2006 3:26:00 PM  

  • John Locke basically embodies the views of the left wing just as Hobbes embodies the right wing. Locke wants equality at the expense of order, while Hobbes want order at the expense of equality. Locke seems mainly concerned with legal systems and the idea that laws apply evenly to every single person, which has never been fully implemented, and due to the nature of politics, may never be. Even here, it seems obvious that the rich or popular or, perhaps only until very recently, white people get off easier, which is not likely a conscious facet of our legal system, as it is set up to be perfectly legal, but the advents of lawyers and general connections with judges give advantages to the rich immediately, and are the major flaws preventing our nation from having a perfectly even application of the law. We generally would think of communism when we think of left wing, though that philosophy was based more on the fairness of economic systems than legal systems, though the economic inequality would mostly solve the other inequalities. Locke believes that governments are not benefitting the common man, and in fact only oppressing them for their own benefit, only helping those with no power when it would be helpful to those in power. Locke wants power to be spread out just enough so that the ruling class are held accountable when they only think of themselves, but does not advocate anarchy or even power among all individuals. He wants nothing but the collective will of the many to be thought about in government in order to ensure their liberty, security, and justice.

    By Blogger Unknown, at Wednesday, October 25, 2006 7:44:00 PM  

  • My first impression of Locke was that he was a political romantic. I now feel as if he thinks men can be ultimately good and accepting of each other and can function with littler government without chaos. His ideas give me the willies.
    Locke's Ideas tend to appear idealistic when concerning government whereas Hobbes' ideas are strictly realistic. John Locke views each man as more of a single state in a human being, each being in direction of his own legislature of sorts, each judging himself, and each having the natural rights all men are born with.
    In stark contrast, Hobbes views men as ultimately selfish and arrogant: Men cannot be self governing therefore they must have a strong central rule. Locke calls an absolute monarch the absence of a civil government, it seems, because one rule is too standardizing and takes away from men's natural rights and ability to govern his self. One the other hand, Hobbes believes that the absolutist monarchy is the best form of government due the corruption of all men and the fact that society functions better when men are under a strict central rule.

    By Blogger TeganLove, at Wednesday, October 25, 2006 8:18:00 PM  

  • Locke's publication almost immediately implies that men are capable of setting their own rules and foundations in a society in order to mutually protect their civil rights: life, liberty and property. Hobbes would certainly disagree on almost every point Locke makes, considering his belief that man is incapable of looking in such a rational way past his basic desires to promote the common good, as man to him is a self-centered creature never intended to socialize. In Locke's view, if the entire society can act as a single body to judge a man without individual bias, then the verdict would be just and the only executioner would be the man who comitted the crime in the first place. There are extreme contrasts in this view to that of Hobbes, who advocated the unanimous placement of absolute power on a single person who is left to judge society by his own will and laws, which lacks the good justice of Locke's system. Locke's views can be described as the basis of true communism, which has never been reached in such a way as he describes as it is a utopian concept. Hobbes would view it as anarchy, which it would be technically, but a structured one. Yet he undyingly believed in the weaknesses of man and therefore expressed his willingness for society to be kept in a virtual straight jacket of authoritarian rule, driven forward ultimately out of basic fear of a violent death. But because of Hobbes' implications that this would increase the fruits of civilization by driving commerce, exploration etc., along with eliminating most crime, this could also be a utopian society. Perhaps only in the fact that the two systems are intended to protect and create their subjects can there be found any similarities between them.

    By Blogger Victoria, at Wednesday, October 25, 2006 11:04:00 PM  

  • In Locke's Second Treatiseof Government his ideas are pretty much the opposite of Hobbes' Leviathan. Where Locke says that men are born with natural rights and being an individual,Hobbes says that men are selfish, and power hungry. Locke finds that absolutism is not a good ideabecause it is up to the government to protect the natural rights of its subjects, where Hobbes advocates absolute monarchies to 'save the people from themselevs'.
    Since Locke believes that men are naturally good and their experiences determine their personality and lifestyle. this is very different from the views of the english people at the time this was written. Predestination was a big thing so this whole 'individual being with natural rights and self determined stuff' nonsense was pretty different from other peoples' ideas.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:38:00 AM  

  • dont forget it wasnt working im doing this in the band room.
    In Locke's Second Treatiseof Government his ideas are pretty much the opposite of Hobbes' Leviathan. Where Locke says that men are born with natural rights and being an individual,Hobbes says that men are selfish, and power hungry. Locke finds that absolutism is not a good ideabecause it is up to the government to protect the natural rights of its subjects, where Hobbes advocates absolute monarchies to 'save the people from themselevs'.
    Since Locke believes that men are naturally good and their experiences determine their personality and lifestyle. this is very different from the views of the english people at the time this was written. Predestination was a big thing so this whole 'individual being with natural rights and self determined stuff' nonsense was pretty different from other peoples' ideas.

    By Blogger manxomefoe, at Thursday, October 26, 2006 10:38:00 AM  

  • Locke gives man a good deal more credit in his writing than Hobbes. Not only does Locke acredit man with unalienable rights, he also displays a faith that man deserves and acts justly and in accordance with those rights. Locke also holds people responsible for their own governemnt just as the government is accountable to the people, e.g. the people must be willing to serve as representatives, jury members, judges. People only gain a say in governments by participating in government. He states that absolute monarchies are flawed because of this lack of representation and that the seeming virtues of absolute monarchies are only the bare bones required by any government.
    Locke lived through the Glorious Revolution and was obviously a staunch supporter of parliament- a system of representation. Locke's document is intended to prove the necessity for some form of democracy from the standpoint of philosophy- hence the constant references to amn and a state of nature.
    I note one similarity between Locke and Hobbes. Both stress the sacrifice of personal "rights", but one stresses obedience to a monarch and the other emphasizes the importances of being integrated into a society. Locke's society is one where every man is a judge and jurer for the "natural rights" of himself and every other man.

    By Blogger ThomasBatson, at Thursday, October 26, 2006 9:54:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home