Comparing Philosophers Hobbes And Locke Philosophy Essay

Comparing Philosophers Hobbes And Locke Philosophy Essay Social contract is an essential principle applied in most societies in the world. Many nations have elected governments which are tasked with maintaining rule of law. Sovereignty of countries is therefore given to governments in exchange of maintaining order. Social contract therefore forms the legitimacy of governments since they require consent from the governed people in order to be considered legitimate. This is seen as important principle which encourages individual and social order. Some of the most important philosophers who advanced arguments for social contract include Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. They however held different views on social contract with Locke supporting liberal monarchy and Hobbes supporting authoritarian monarchy. Their arguments have set the framework for development of theories such as liberal democracy, constitutional monarchy, republicanism and others. Their theories have also been implemented in many democracies across the world. This paper will evaluate Lockes and Hobbes arguments on social contract with specific focus on the differences in their approach to the topic. The paper will then take one viewpoint from among the two discussed and explain why it is superior to the other. The discussed issues will be summarized at the end. Hobbes view of social contract Hobbes was of the opinion that authoritarian monarchy is the most effective form of social order in society. In this form of organization, the people submit to the authority or leadership. Hobbes supported leadership where exclusive power was given to leaders or a political class (Adams 2003). This form of leadership has several characteristics which include the concentration of power among leaders and the use of strategies such as exclusion of challengers and political repression to maintain authority. In this form of leadership, Hobbes was of the view that mass organizations and political parties are effective in mobilizing the population around the goals of a political system. He supported this political system since he viewed men as equal and therefore preventing conflict amongst them was impossible. Man fought for basic necessities and material possession which would ultimately lead to social collapse. The authoritarian monarchy was viewed as most effective in stemming this chao s in society. Hobbes supported monarchy since it was difficult for monarchs to disagree with themselves. However, this system of governance features unpopular leadership strategies such as rigging of elections, making of political decisions by the minority as well as presence of bureaucracy. Leaders are appointed by the political class without participation of citizens and there is unregulated and informal use of power. This system also features intolerance for the opposition and deprivation of civil liberties. In order to control political power, the military is often used in states which exercise authoritarian forms of power. Social control is maintained by regulating the civil society and establishing allegiance through use of socialization processes. These forms of leadership are usually weakened by poor performance of the political class with regards to peoples needs. Many collapse due to revolution by the population against leadership. During the Cold War, the USSR governance system is an example of the authoritarian rule in society. Currently, countries such as Chad and North Kor ea adhere to this governance system. Lockes view of social contract Locke supported liberal monarchy which supports equal rights and liberty in governance. This leadership structure supports liberal democracy, constitutions, human rights, free elections, free trade, capitalism and religious freedom (Arnold 2006). It is also known as constitutional monarchy. In this political system, a monarch acts as head of state and derives power from the constitution. In many liberal monarchies, parliamentary systems are applied and these serve the purpose of checking excesses by the executive. In the past, liberal monarchy co-existed with quasi-fascist, fascist or military dictatorship. Liberal monarchy systems believe in going to war in cases of aggression although use of unilateral force is not supported as it encourages cycles of violence. Locke believed that liberal monarchy would best protect private property and encourage liberty; two of the most important amenities enjoyed by humans (Locke 2003). He viewed the human nature as being driven by self preservat ion and survival instincts, which made it necessary to have a supreme power in order to maintain social order. The social contract between people being governed and the sovereign authority achieved this objective. There are various weaknesses which are associated with the liberal monarchy governance system. The first is that although representatives are elected, these are few individuals who make decisions on behalf of the whole system. In essence, power is therefore held by few individuals who have a similar ability to misuse it as is seen in the authoritative governance system. Some critics, especially those who have Marxist roots, argue that this governance system is controlled by the rich as opposed to the majority. It is therefore not democratic as it is class based. The rich have the power and resources to ensure they are elected into power, which defeats the objectives of the system. In such systems, religious and ethnic conflicts are also often seen and this is viewed as a weakness of the system. In authoritarian rule, the government would stem such conflicts and restore social order. Finally, these governance systems are seen to focus on short term objectives as opposed to long term o nes. Since the election of government is held regularly, legislators focus on short term goals which would make them popular with the electorate as opposed to long term ones which may not be visible within short term durations. Current liberal monarchies include Bahrain, Bahamas, Australia, Denmark, Canada, Cambodia, Lesotho, Monaco, Malaysia, Norway, Sweden, UK, Thailand and others. Differences between Hobbes and Lockes approach to social contract theory A major difference between Hobbes and Lockes views on social contract is that Hobbes believes in authoritarian rule where the political power yields absolute power while Locke believes in the power of democracy, rule of law and respect for human rights (Hegel 2001). Locke believed in protecting private property and liberty while Hobbes believed that human beings were incapable of living without conflict unless an authoritarian authority restored order. Another difference between these theories is that Locke views society as possessing power to overthrow governments. Locke viewed society as creators of the government which gave them power to overthrow it. However, Hobbes views the government as a powerful monarch which the people cannot overthrow. Locke is of the opinion that abolishing a government and replacing it with another as upholding the social contract. Unlike Hobbes who viewed the human nature as driven to fight for basic necessities and material possession which would ultimately lead to social collapse, Locke believed that God had created human beings with wisdom which could prevent their greedy nature from taking over. Locke also believed that the social contract between the authoritative monarch and the people would not be fair as two distinctive groups would emerge; property owners and the poor. The poor would then have different contracts from the rich and they would suffer under this rule. Personal opinion on the best social contract approach I believe that Lockes social contract approach is the most effective in maintaining social order in society. Liberal monarchy advocates for equal rights and liberty in governance. This leadership structure supports liberal democracy, constitutions, human rights, free elections, free trade, capitalism and religious freedom. There are several reasons which I will advance for support of Lockes liberal monarchy political system and these arguments will be contrasted against Hobbes theories to prove that the latter is inferior in achieving stable political and social unit. The first reason for support of Lockes approach is political and economic stability. Many countries across the world have enjoyed economic and political stability from democracy over centuries. In fact, most countries of the world follow a structure similar to liberal monarchy which supports equal rights and democratic election of government officials. These countries have enjoyed stability since they make decisions based on the rule of the majority. Democracy is followed in making political decisions and the people participate in political systems through the officials they elect. Due to this, most people support democratic regimes since they stand for what the majority advocates for. However, countries which have followed Hobbes authoritative leadership styles have experienced conflicts and revolutions. This is due to the reason that the leadership goals are not in line with what the people stand for. The fact that oppression and intolerance for opposition strategies are used also reduces public confidence in the political class. Governments which have been overthrown as a result of using this system include Tunisia, USSR, Uganda, Cuba, Germany, France and others. . Another reason why I support Lockes social contract approach is that it upholds human rights. Human rights are the basic freedoms which people enjoy. Some of the rights upheld by this system include the right to own property, right to religious freedom, right of expression and others. Locke supports safeguarding of rights according to the constitution. He advocates for protection of property and justice. However, Hobbes vests power in a few people who make all political decisions. These people in power hold the rights of the society and they make unilateral decisions of what is acceptable or not. This can be seen to be infringement of human rights which everyone should have access to. This makes Hobbes leadership approach unacceptable in the modern society. Finally, history has proven that countries which have practiced Lockes approach have prospered while those which have applied Hobbes approach have collapsed in the long run. Many revolutions such as the French revolution and Cuban revolution as well as the collapse of countries such as the USSR can be attributed to the use of Hobbes authoritarian monarchy leadership system. Current revolutions against countries such as Tunisia and Egypt can also be traced to the use of a similar approach. On the other hand, economically and politically stable countries in the modern world such as UK, US and others have applied the democratic governance system. This shows that Lockes approach is more effective in maintaining social order than Hobbes approach. Summary and conclusion Social contract has been discussed to be a form of gaining government legitimacy through giving governments sovereignty in exchange for maintaining order. Locke and Hobbes are important philosophers who analyzed social contract theories. However, their approaches were different with Locke supporting liberal monarchy and Hobbes supporting authoritarian monarchy. Both approaches have weaknesses and strengths which have been discussed in the paper. The most effective approach to apply in leadership especially in the modern world is Lockes approach which supports liberal democracy, constitutions, human rights, free elections, free trade, capitalism and religious freedom. This approach is consistent with the needs of several societies and it has been successfully implemented in many states. Hobbes approach has failed in several countries due to revolution against the political class which practices authoritarian rule. It is important for leaders to embrace leadership which supports respect for human rights, democracy and protection of property. History has proven that this is the most effective leadership style. Leaders who have failed to embrace democracy have faced revolutions and the current ones in Tunisia and Egypt can be traced to the weaknesses in Hobbes leadership style. When leaders impose their will on the people, there is likely to be resistance since the majority will not have their way. Although strategies such as repression work in the short term, eventually the people lose faith in leadership and a revolution is born. Leaders should therefore follow Lockes liberal monarchy political system and embrace democracy. Once democracy is embraced, human rights protected and the constitution is adhered to, the leadership gains support from the people. This ensures that order is maintained within states and that people live in harmony and peace.

The Prince :: essays research papers

"An Outline and Arguments on The Prince by Machiavelli" Niccolo Machiavelli was a very knowledgeable man. He was born in Florence in 1469 and when he was of the age 43 he wrote The Prince. His first admission into politics happened in1498 with the title as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria. He held this job through the year 1512 right before the Medici took over Florence. He was very faithful to his elders and to the policies of the government. In 1502 he became assistant to Soderini who was elected chief magistrate of the Republic. One of his finest accomplishments came in the year 1509 when he made Pisa acquiesce after a 15 year struggle. He was mostly credited because he directed the land and sea blockade that brought about Pisa’s submission. Three years later the Spaniards attacked Prato. They broke the walls, attacked the defenders, and totally destroyed the town. A couple days later Soderini resigned and went into exile. The Medici took control of Florence and six weeks later dismissed and banished Machiav elli for one year. Early in 1513 he was suspected of plotting to overthrow the Medici government. He was first arrested, then tortured, and then released after his innocence was satisfactorily proven. He then went to a small farm near San Casciano where he was restless and bored. There he wrote the book called The Prince. There are a lot of ideas and teachings mentioned in the book. It as a whole discusses what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are won, how they are maintained and why they are lost. He first states that there are either republics or principalities (inherited or new). Principalities that are inherited are more easily to keep because the citizens already know and are familiar with the family in power. So the new prince should not keep away from the methods of his predecessors. This theory holds value because if the people are already familiar with the law and are acquainted with family then the heir to the throne will be loved and taken in as a brother. If a new state is conquered then it will be hard to keep because of all the injuries that took place while occupying the new principality. Therefore, he will probably lose it. But, after one has conquered a territory a second time it will be easily lost because the ruler can use the rebellion as an excuse. The Prince :: essays research papers "An Outline and Arguments on The Prince by Machiavelli" Niccolo Machiavelli was a very knowledgeable man. He was born in Florence in 1469 and when he was of the age 43 he wrote The Prince. His first admission into politics happened in1498 with the title as Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Signoria. He held this job through the year 1512 right before the Medici took over Florence. He was very faithful to his elders and to the policies of the government. In 1502 he became assistant to Soderini who was elected chief magistrate of the Republic. One of his finest accomplishments came in the year 1509 when he made Pisa acquiesce after a 15 year struggle. He was mostly credited because he directed the land and sea blockade that brought about Pisa’s submission. Three years later the Spaniards attacked Prato. They broke the walls, attacked the defenders, and totally destroyed the town. A couple days later Soderini resigned and went into exile. The Medici took control of Florence and six weeks later dismissed and banished Machiav elli for one year. Early in 1513 he was suspected of plotting to overthrow the Medici government. He was first arrested, then tortured, and then released after his innocence was satisfactorily proven. He then went to a small farm near San Casciano where he was restless and bored. There he wrote the book called The Prince. There are a lot of ideas and teachings mentioned in the book. It as a whole discusses what a principality is, what kinds there are, how they are won, how they are maintained and why they are lost. He first states that there are either republics or principalities (inherited or new). Principalities that are inherited are more easily to keep because the citizens already know and are familiar with the family in power. So the new prince should not keep away from the methods of his predecessors. This theory holds value because if the people are already familiar with the law and are acquainted with family then the heir to the throne will be loved and taken in as a brother. If a new state is conquered then it will be hard to keep because of all the injuries that took place while occupying the new principality. Therefore, he will probably lose it. But, after one has conquered a territory a second time it will be easily lost because the ruler can use the rebellion as an excuse.

Creative Writing “Into the Darkness” Essay

It had just turned night when Victoria heard the thunder roll in, and the lightening strike against the ground. This worried her for she was afraid of losing power. As the night grew on the storm worsened. Making sure she wasn’t forgetting her laptop, Victoria made her way upstairs to the comforts of her bedroom. She decided this would be the perfect opportunity to take advantage of her time and watch the latest shows Netflix had to offer. Settling into her bed with her laptop in hand Victoria reached over to plug her charger in. Just as she did so, the power went out. Startled by the sudden darkness, she reached under her bed for her flashlight. Grasping her flashlight tightly, Victoria headed back downstairs to see what may have caused the power to go out. As Victoria went downstairs she noticed her porch door was ajar. Cautiously she approached the door and peered outside to see who or what may have opened the door. Nothing seemed to be around. Certain that the storm had simply blown out the power, Victoria poured herself a glass of hot chocolate and returned upstairs. Something seemed different to Victoria, but she was unsure of what exactly. Much to her dismay her beloved laptop was missing. Appalled by this discovery, Victoria quickly became worried that someone may be in the house with her. Using her survival instincts she quickly grabbed the flashlight and headed out into the hallway, if someone was in the house with her laptop, Victoria was determined to catch them and get her laptop back. Shaky and nervous she slowly peered out into the hallway, no one was to be found. Once at the stairs she swiftly tumbled down them, only missing a few steps at the bottom, but redeeming herself with style. The power had yet to return, and the only thing Victoria had with her was a flashlight. Determined she would catch the culprit and get her laptop back, she sprang across the room and swung the bathroom door open. Still she found no one. Next she opened the closet, then her office, and finally the last room she had left to check was the basement. Victoria clenched onto the flashlight and slowly turned the nob and entered the dark stairwell leading to the basement. Taking each step one at a time, until she got to the final one. When she glanced around the corner Victoria could see someone standing there. She couldn’t make out the face for it was too dark, and her flashlight was dimming by the second. Victoria slowly inched towards the dark figure, getting closer and closer, until finally she was close enough. Just as she reached out to grab onto the dark figure, she dropped the flashlight. All hopes of seeing who they were went away as soon as Victoria’s flashlight hit the floor. The dark figure quickly turned around tightly grasping the laptop. Victoria got struck in the face by her own laptop, and was knocked onto the ground. When she awoke the power had returned, and the storm had stopped. As Victoria got up off the floors she quickly glanced to around to see if anyone was around. There was nobody to be found, and her laptop was gone.

The Bluest Eye By Toni Morrison - 2351 Words

How does one define beauty? The term white is often associated with synonyms like purity, godly and innocence. In comparison, the color black is typically associated with ugliness, darkness and evil. Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye illustrates the struggles many black women faced in a patriarchal society, as they struggled to meet an impossible standard of beauty. â€Å"Black females were double oppressed. First, they have been sexually oppressed by white masters under the institutionalized slavery. Second, they have been victimized by family members and social institutions† (Tahir 3). From a feminist perspective, I will examine how The Bluest Eye depicts a standard of white beauty that led to the oppression and self-destruction of black women†¦show more content†¦Morrison questions the foundation of white supremacy imposed by the standards of beauty in The Bluest Eye. In the novel many characters attempt to conform to the white standard of beauty. Pecola Breed love the eleven-year-old African American protagonist of the novel, has been told her entire life that she wasn’t ‘good’ enough, or ‘pretty’ enough by society. â€Å"It had occurred to Pecola some time ago that if her eyes, those eyes that held pictures, and knew the sights – if those eyes of hers were different, that is to say, beautiful, she herself would be different† (Morrison 46). Pecola believes that if she had blue eyes not only will she be viewed as beautiful by her community, but she believes beauty will change her status in society. Pecola’s desire to become beautiful illustrates her psychological oppression. Pecola associates beauty with status. She believes by meeting the standard of white beauty, her life will be better. Feminist theory describes the psychological effects oppression has on the individual. â€Å"Feminist psychoanalytic theory is interested in patriarchy’s influence on women’s psycholog ical experience creativity. Its focus is on the individual psyche, not on group experience. For the oppression of women is not limited to the economic, political and social† (Tysons 99). Pecola’s