John Locke And Thomas Hobbes’S Position

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes’s position

Introduction

In this work we will analyze, in the first part, the position of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes regarding the perspective of rebellion against an absolute sovereign and then compare both. Then, we will determine if Nicolas Machiavelo and René Descartes have similarities with Locke and/or Hobbes. And finally I will give my opinion on which position I feel most identified, if John’s or Thomas’s.

Developing

To begin, we will show John Locke’s perspective regarding the rebellion against an absolute sovereign, he spoke of a state of nature where he lived in complete freedom, ruled a common law, reason, and there was a perfect equality where he was extremelyImportant private property. The reason why men enter society is to preserve their property. He also says that the state of natives is an unstable balance between war and peace. 

None must harm another in what concerns their life, health, freedom or possessions. After the state of nature, the marital status where an entity that governs by all the citizens of the place is chosen, said the above, Locke considered that the people had the ability to rebel against the absolute monarch if it abused its power or notComply with what was promised, since they left the state of nature and entered a marital status, properly to be able to live more at ease and better, so if the monarch does not comply with what the people said if you can rebel to dismiss it.

Thomas Hobbes also speaks of a state of nature but unlike Locke, he considered that it was a permanent and total state of war, of all against all, it is manifest that during the time in which men live without a common power that theFire to all, they are in the condition or state called Guerra;such a war that is everyone against everyone. For Hobbes, the monarch has absolute power and can use it as they want so if the people are encouraged to rebel against the monarch, it can use the physical violence as they want, in other words, the people if you canrebel but it will be difficult since the sovereign will defend himself with everything he has at his disposal. Making a comparison between Hobbes and Locke, both are in favor of the rebellion against the monarch but on the side of Hobbes he looks more difficult since the ruler can be lifted against the rebels.

In this second part we will see on which side the more Machiavelli and Descartes resemble, if Locke or Hobbes. Machiavelli in his posthumous book, the prince, talks about how to access and especially how to stay on the throne or other words in power, so to talk about rebellion against the monarch by him, would be very distant from the thought he triesRefell in this book, which is to stay in power, so Machiavelli would disagree with the people’s rebellion against their monarch. A prince should not have another objective, or another concern, nor should he consider as his own study than that of war, his organization and his discipline. Because this is an art necessary exclusively for those who send. 

conclusion

According to Descartes, we must include the laws and customs of the country, just as we must remain faithful to the opinions accepted as true, as long as they are not demonstrated as false, said that, I consider that René would disagree with the rebellion against the monarch, andthat would not be obeying the laws and customs of the country, assuming (logically) that it is illegal to rebel against the monarch. My third maxim was to always try to overcome myself rather than fortune, and alter my wishes before the world order.