Hobbes Views On Rebellion

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    The Cid And Cinna Analysis

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Several lines later, Arias again states, “You should redoubt the power of a king…Remember, kings wish to be absolute.” This, as Corneille writes constitutes a bad king. This not only exemplifies a bad king, but also portrays a tyrant. If one is afraid of the actions of the king, as well as how much power the king has, then the king simply has too much power and jurisdiction. If the king has too much power, but does not take advantage of his power and uses that power for good, then he would not be a tyrant. However, like many of the kings during this time period, they do not and simply take advantage of the amount of power that he has.…

    • 1465 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Wallis observed that “once independent, Americans worried continuously about their governments and how to design their political institutions to limit corruption” (Wallis 24). When creating a new government, the Framers obsessed over the inevitability of corruption. They surrendered to the fact that corruption cannot be made to vanish, instead realizing that its danger can be limited by legal structure and civic virtue. From the failures of France and Britain, the Framers came to the conclusion that no single form of government was superior. Instead, the appropriate structure of government would need to regularly inhibit any deviations from civic…

    • 1420 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It is human nature to naturally be evil and we must have government to maintain and regulate society, in order to prevent citizens from trumping others rights. Ideologies is a “prescription for society based on personal values.” A truly objective political ideology is almost impossible, but if it can be sensitive to the individual and best promotes their cooperation towards mutual ends. Ronald Reagan was a modern conservative who proposed many changes to how he thought…

    • 1738 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Machiavellian rulers are normally seen as even more totalitarian and controlling than Hobbesian style (this probably stems from Machiavelli's idea that one of the best ways to establish a state is by force), which would undoubtedly hinder any efforts to establish a Machiavellian government in any sort of Western context. However, as previously stated, Machiavelli encourages his Prince to use violence and power to establish his rule, meaning that while the Prince might face initial resistance, if he were to squash it quickly, he could be successful despite the initial threats to his power. This sort of show of force would also discourage neighboring nations from interfering in domestic affairs (the Prince has shown them that it is in their self interest to not upset the nation with the strong and powerful army, whereas the nation that has elected a seemingly terrible leader does not wield the same sort of power or cause the same sort of fear). It then follows that if a society ruled by Machiavelli's sort of Prince were established, the use of manipulation and reputation that Machiavelli encouraged could undoubtedly help to maintain peace and calm (just as the similar characteristics that an all-powerful ruler maintains would assist one who ruled in the style of Hobbes's Leviathan). All in all, Machiavelli's tactics of fear are much more effective than any sort of trust or love that an…

    • 1758 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    It gave them a chance to start a new form of government without a king. The only problem was Hamilton and Jefferson did not have the same idea of the type of government they wanted to accomplish for their new nation. Hamilton wanted to accomplish a strong central government. He wanted a government that would be able to control the people’s behavior. He understood that “sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things”, this gave Hamilton an advantage because Jefferson did not recognize this.…

    • 829 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He disagreed with the idea of an absolute monarchy, but instead said that limited power was more effective. With that being said, it is society’s right to overthrow the government whenever they have evidence to do so. Locke’s idea of a social contract was very different than Hobbes’. According to Locke, life in the state of nature was filled with “peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation.” Locke strongly believed that because people were naturally moral, in a social contract, no competition or harm would be an issue. He thought that without a government to defend the people against those wanting to take advantage of them, soon fear would take over.…

    • 909 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Locke is very clear on this question, but it leads to trouble and tension with his previous statements. Locke says “the people shall be judge” (386). Locke argues that while individuals have given up their right to rebel, the collective mass of people in the society that has given their consent has the right to judge the legislature or king of the land. This view sets a dangerous precedent that disregards everything that was a defense of the theory in the previous sections of the treatise. If the people can determine when an action is against the people, numerous revolutions will occur.…

    • 2225 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes wanted an absolute monarchy, he believed that people were wicked, selfish, and cruel and that they would act on behalf of their best interests, basically that the humans only think in our self’s, “Every man for every man” Hobbes said. But in the other side we have John Locke that he basically wanted a democracy, he said that since we were born we have certain inalienable rights, that are: life, liberty and the right to own property, he also believed that the people were by nature good and that they could be trusted to govern themselves. Humans constantly need rules, laws and consequences, without them is very easy that people can do what they want. Without the laws the families wouldn’t act like a family there would not be fraternity…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Government functions should be performed by all of the people, not by representatives, as necessary to meet specific needs. Lockes’ state of nature has both the good and bad aspects of Hobbes and Rousseau. People had complete freedom to do as they wanted, as Rousseau believed, but exercising that freedom sometimes created conflict between people as Hobbes believed. Locke believed that people create governments to protect the rights of all the people without unnecessarily restricting the rights of individuals. Lockes’ view is more accurate because humans do have the flaws of Hobbes and the aspirations of Rousseau.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    “To understand the world today; it is essential to understand the conflicting ideologies that are at the heart of many conflicts and so much political debate.”(Sargent, 1) They are extremely significant and can define every person’s agenda and propaganda guiding their political actions and shaping their lives. Studying the different political ideologies is about analyzing thoughts and reflecting on issues. Many argue that belief causes terrorism. Terrorism derives from ideology, what terrorists believe in, constitutes the reason they commit such acts. Let us examine one extremely intriguing case: the Islamic ideology where we find ourselves trying to explain Al-Qaeda and ISIS.…

    • 1143 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays