We are asked what type of situations would have to occur or under which conditions would it be deemed acceptable or ok if ever to take action into our own hands, to rebel and go against our government. What would have to happen in order to make it acceptable for us to inflict fear and the risk of civil war on our own citizens. This particular topic is still seen as very relevant even at present in the world. There have been many rebellions all around the world that are hugely important in history and in the running of those countries even today. Still to this day are rebellions occurring all over the world many for different reasons. To help me answer these questions and develop different arguments I will be looking at the highly insightful
…show more content…
He believed that society in order to be successful had to be ruled by a strict system of government such as absolute monarchy. In Hobbes’s dissertation “The Leviathan”(1651) a book where he expresses his views he explains that a law of nature was "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life” (Hobbes, 1651, ch14/XIV, p. 64). The law of nature was a broad principle which was discovered through experience and expected to be to be followed in everyday life. These laws encouraged self preservation and disapproved any doings damaging or negative to human life such a rebellions which could result in civil …show more content…
Extremely unlike Hobbes’s view, Locke had a more positive view of human nature and believed in their views and opinions. Locke believed humans could improve themselves and even a government if they were willing to do, so while Hobbes on the other hand believed that humans were narcissistic and only thought about themselves and strived for their own benefit. It is in Locke’s book “The Second Treatise on Government” that the most precise examinations into the right of revolution can be found. Its clear from his book that the right of rebellion and revolution ties hand in hand with Locke’s political theory. this book was used almost to justify the revolution in the late seventeenth century (O’Tool,2011). This is to make sure that the people do not have to experience the mistreatments of a tyrannical sovereign ever again. Locke did believe that people should rebel against the government even if that meant risking civil war if it represented standing up for what they believed in. His work was used to prove to people that challenging the sovereign or head of state could be deemed reasonable. His guideline for revolution is much stronger than that of Hobbes because to Locke, the sovereign didn't mean a great deal, to him it simply meant another man who, like all others, was capable of mistakes. He didn't agree that sovereign had absolute or arbitrary authority and he believed they
He believed that society in order to be successful had to be ruled by a strict system of government such as absolute monarchy. In Hobbes’s dissertation “The Leviathan”(1651) a book where he expresses his views he explains that a law of nature was "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life” (Hobbes, 1651, ch14/XIV, p. 64). The law of nature was a broad principle which was discovered through experience and expected to be to be followed in everyday life. These laws encouraged self preservation and disapproved any doings damaging or negative to human life such a rebellions which could result in civil …show more content…
Extremely unlike Hobbes’s view, Locke had a more positive view of human nature and believed in their views and opinions. Locke believed humans could improve themselves and even a government if they were willing to do, so while Hobbes on the other hand believed that humans were narcissistic and only thought about themselves and strived for their own benefit. It is in Locke’s book “The Second Treatise on Government” that the most precise examinations into the right of revolution can be found. Its clear from his book that the right of rebellion and revolution ties hand in hand with Locke’s political theory. this book was used almost to justify the revolution in the late seventeenth century (O’Tool,2011). This is to make sure that the people do not have to experience the mistreatments of a tyrannical sovereign ever again. Locke did believe that people should rebel against the government even if that meant risking civil war if it represented standing up for what they believed in. His work was used to prove to people that challenging the sovereign or head of state could be deemed reasonable. His guideline for revolution is much stronger than that of Hobbes because to Locke, the sovereign didn't mean a great deal, to him it simply meant another man who, like all others, was capable of mistakes. He didn't agree that sovereign had absolute or arbitrary authority and he believed they