Both social contract theorist, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have similar ideas on the relations between state and its citizens. Thomas Hobbes provides a hypothetical account of the universe before sovereign(s), which is known to be the state of nature. University of Auckland philosopher Davies provides an alternative form to the state of nature, radical state of nature. Davies suggests that in this form, all individuals are in their natural condition and not subject to a third party or political ruler. Hence why all the individuals are self-ruling. Also there is no in-justice within this form of the state of nature (Hobbes ch. 13), due to the non-existence of a united sovereign. In the De Cive Hobbes states that what
…show more content…
William Uzgalis states that a legitimate government is established by the consent of those instituted. Also William Uzgalis goes on to state that those that agree are therefore transferring their rights of judgment and punishment (John Locke sec. 4.3). In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan individuals transfers all their rights to the sovereign, which is called social contract (ch. 14). Both Locke and Hobbes portrays the sovereign to obtain full power from the individuals, which creates a platonic system ‘Hierarchy’. The monarchy and government are right at the top, advisers, individual representative, their families and then slaves. Having a hierarchy builds specific roles and functions of all. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both describe the sovereign(s) to contain peace and just among their citizens, by protecting their rights. Also to interpret Holy Scripture. Whereas advises is their right-hand person with little in-put to their final decisions and citizens are supposed to be obedience to their commands and are not permitted to revolt. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes idea on sovereign(s) relationship with their citizens can be understood in following statement: Parent and young child. Its due to sovereign acting as a parent with all their demands, consequences and leadership. However, citizens are similar to young children, being told what holy scripture to read, …show more content…
Leading to the assumptions that citizens are not supposed to revolt against their sovereign. However only under three conditions: if subject’s life is at risk, by decision and if all individuals supports their decision to rebel. This can occur when the sovereign is fully not upholding their role in maintain peace among citizens of the state, in which they are inclined to rebel. When rebelling Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan argues that it ought to be by decision and not by breaching their contract (ch.16). It due to the subjects are contracted to him and their ruler is not. By doing this, it allows the sovereign to exercise full power among his people and not be obliged to anyone or contract. However, subjects are allowed to rebel by individual decision. Decision based on whether or not the ruler is functioning by his full potential in maintaining peace within society. Also individual are supposed to get support from the majority, or else they do not stand a chance against. According to John Locke account, citizen of the state is only permitted to revolt against their government by breach of contract. John Locke argues that sovereign contracts with their citizens to protect their property rights and maintain peace. It allows the government to have obligations that may limit their power. For instances: the government are not allowed to
William Uzgalis states that a legitimate government is established by the consent of those instituted. Also William Uzgalis goes on to state that those that agree are therefore transferring their rights of judgment and punishment (John Locke sec. 4.3). In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan individuals transfers all their rights to the sovereign, which is called social contract (ch. 14). Both Locke and Hobbes portrays the sovereign to obtain full power from the individuals, which creates a platonic system ‘Hierarchy’. The monarchy and government are right at the top, advisers, individual representative, their families and then slaves. Having a hierarchy builds specific roles and functions of all. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both describe the sovereign(s) to contain peace and just among their citizens, by protecting their rights. Also to interpret Holy Scripture. Whereas advises is their right-hand person with little in-put to their final decisions and citizens are supposed to be obedience to their commands and are not permitted to revolt. John Locke and Thomas Hobbes idea on sovereign(s) relationship with their citizens can be understood in following statement: Parent and young child. Its due to sovereign acting as a parent with all their demands, consequences and leadership. However, citizens are similar to young children, being told what holy scripture to read, …show more content…
Leading to the assumptions that citizens are not supposed to revolt against their sovereign. However only under three conditions: if subject’s life is at risk, by decision and if all individuals supports their decision to rebel. This can occur when the sovereign is fully not upholding their role in maintain peace among citizens of the state, in which they are inclined to rebel. When rebelling Thomas Hobbes in the Leviathan argues that it ought to be by decision and not by breaching their contract (ch.16). It due to the subjects are contracted to him and their ruler is not. By doing this, it allows the sovereign to exercise full power among his people and not be obliged to anyone or contract. However, subjects are allowed to rebel by individual decision. Decision based on whether or not the ruler is functioning by his full potential in maintaining peace within society. Also individual are supposed to get support from the majority, or else they do not stand a chance against. According to John Locke account, citizen of the state is only permitted to revolt against their government by breach of contract. John Locke argues that sovereign contracts with their citizens to protect their property rights and maintain peace. It allows the government to have obligations that may limit their power. For instances: the government are not allowed to