John Locke’s philosophy on governance and the right for humans to pursue their own natural rights sticks out more than the philosophies of other political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes. Locke generally held a more positive view on the subject of human nature and believed that people should only be led by rulers that have been given the people’s permission to lead. Locke’s stances on politics and governance came at a time where a young English colony was trying to determine how it would govern itself and its people moving forward. On the contrary, Hobbes felt that human nature was often negative in nature and the eventual revolutionary war that Locke inspired actually gives merit to his stance. Keeping in his pessimistic view, Hobbes favored monarchies over democracies.
For the periods that they both worked within, both of these philosophers had ideas and writings that justified either side of the major political debates of their eras. However, when looking at how the world and its politics have evolved over time, it is clear that John Locke’s philosophies on politics and government have been superior in both practice and theory. This is because countries all over the world have fought or politically bargained for their independence from British, French, and Italian rule and have passed their own laws over time that have addressed the oppression that their own citizens were suffering. When looking at present day political issues, the equality of all citizens to pursue their natural rights and freedoms is still a strong point of debate for liberal, conservative, and moderate political theorists and writers.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Westerm Civilization".
John Locke’s political beliefs have so much prevalence in present day politics because of how they helped lead so many political advancements in the past. During his time period, Locke saw how people were beginning to rebel against the monarchies that ruled over them. These people often rebelled because they felt that the monarchs and their policies were taking advantage of them and making their lives more difficult than what they should have ever been. These monarchs could have prevented the amount of rebellions that happened from occurring if they had thought about the needs of their people instead of their personal wealth more often. If absolute monarchs could have ruled with more benevolence, Hobbes’ theories on government may have been more successful in practice.
It is true that humans have been inclined to go to war more often than not throughout world history. Knowing this, absolute monarchs should know better than to oppress an entire country of people that have a natural urge for using violence to get what they want. Montesquieu’s thoughts on the separation of powers would have helped monarchs prevent these rebellions. This is because they could have given a sizable amount of power to what would now be known as a parliament to go out and survey what was wrong with the people and what they needed. Under Hobbes’ theory of an absolute monarchy, monarchs would never need nor want to go out and be among their people. With this presence of this constant disconnect, would only be a matter of time before citizens’ frustration, desperation, and anger got the best of them.
To conclude, Locke’s political theories gave human nature the benefit of the doubt and allowed for the possibility of people being able to govern themselves and choose their own leaders. This contrasts strongly with Hobbes’ pessimistic views on human nature and the ability for people to govern themselves and choose their own leadership. Other political philosophers of the time often fell in between these two writers’ political extremes, but the fact remains that Locke’s theories are what became common practice within all Western countries after the beginning of the Enlightenment period.
