Political Philosophers and Their Effect On Society Today
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau are three main political philosophers that have traumatically influenced our current society in many ways. It is the goal here to address each with indifference and acute observation into the theories and methods of each. While each of these men were writing in different periods of history and time, with different events biasing their thoughts towards one solution or another, they made some of the most important statements in political history today; and in essence have 'shown us the way' so to speak, of how to run our country. And because our society is based upon many of the ideas presented by these men we will address each from their fundamental view of nature, their thoughts on the development and formation of society, their reasons for establishment of government, and their views on which governments better fit which societies.
Thomas Hobbes began as an English philosopher, and progressed to address political theory through his great works the Elements of Law, Natural and Politic; and the most known of his, Leviathan. He believed man to be one of the most viscous creatures to live, for the simple reason that we could not only think but communicate our ideas to one another. Yet, we must abide by certain laws of nature such "as 'justice,' 'equity,' 'modesty,' 'mercy,' and, in sum, 'doing to others as we would be done on to.'" (Hobbes, 34) However true this might be, he states that we as humans have "natural passions that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like" which are contrary to the previous laws. (Hobbes, 34) He believed that "men are continually in competition for honor and dignity" with each other, and that they basically lived fearing one another in a "state of constant competition and conflict." (Brophy, 33) And thus by being so brutal in nature -- in order to live in preservation - we must succumb to a central and supreme power.
Hobbes thought that as a people our goal was to survive, and benefit from life. But because of our natural tendencies to be animalistic we must form a society to protect each person individual possessions. So in essence we need to see that to "live in commonwealths is the foresight of our own preservation." (Hobbes, 34) And to protect not only ourselves, but our possessions, and interests we've formed a government. A government shall do exactly that, 'govern;' since it is our goal as humans to protect our possessions, we formed a society, and in turn formed a government to protect those interests.
Hobbes felt the best way for this to be looked after were to have a commonwealth in which we pledged.
"I authorize and give up me right of governing myself to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition that you give up your right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner." (Hobbes, 36)
This was considered a contract between the people and the government, where the people would give up their rights to the monarch so that in return they both themselves and their interests would be protected in this commonwealth. In this commonwealth the on ruler would be a "'mortal god,' to which we owe under the 'immortal God,' our peace and defense. (Hobbes, 36) For as human beings alone we could not survive and would literally just about tear ourselves apart through conflict if there is more than one source of power. Once we gave the power was given it could not be taken away, for the simple reason that if we could overthrow the supreme ruler than he would not have had any real source of power, and could not lead or have any kind of control over the people for he would not be a monarch.
While this was a completely relevant idea to Hobbes, Jonathan Locke had a different perspective on the nature of society, government, and their workings. Locke felt that "all men by nature are equal." (Locke, 81) Though children were born into the world, "their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them when they come into the world, and for some time after, but it is but a temporary one." (Locke, 81) Humans to him were considered to be born ignorant, and as they were educated the grew to become equal in principle.
John Lock looked upon society as a means to protect the basic rights one was given. Those rights included liberty, property, and life. (Locke, 89) The purpose of society was to protect to common right from the ideas and actions of others. To help this succeed, they instilled the concept of government, to write and enforce laws written in accordance with the protections of their humanly rights. Locke felt that government was a contract with the people, and as in any contract; if it was not upheld, it could be nullified, and the government overthrown. One of Locke's most important works, Two treaties on Government, addresses these issues specifically stating that
"Every man, by consenting with other to make on body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of the society to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he and others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing and be no compact if he be left free and under no other ties than he was in before the stat of Nature." (Locke, 87-88)
This was basically a justification for revolution, since the government had been instilled to protect the people, their rights and interests as it rests on the popular consent and rebellion would be permissible if the government had not done so. It is not only the duty but the obligation of the people to do something about it, for it they were not to then they would be ultimately injuring themselves and countrymen.
Unlike the other two political philosophers here, Locke believed that whichever government worked the best for a certain area, than that's what should be used. Whether it ended up being an democracy, oligarchy, or a monarchy, if the government did its job protecting the peoples interest and rights then that's what would be the best for that certain area. (Rousseau, Ch. X) His statements toward the justification of revolution disturbed many at the time, but his thoughts on natural rights have lived on to be implemented into our own bill of rights, making him and importance influence on our method of society and its interaction with government in order to preserve our freedom through social contract.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed in a social contract for the people such as Locke did, however instead of focusing his contract on freedom; he based it on a radical idea of equality.
Rousseau felt that "Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains," meaning that we are all born into freedom but in life we are not. (Rousseau, 173) Rousseau addressed this idea throughout his politically based book The Social Contract. In it he addresses the perceptive freedoms and equality of man. He states that "since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men," meaning that no one has natural authority, it must be formed in order to keep order. (Rousseau, 175) Rousseau also addresses the fact that we need to form society to preserve our natural rights as did Locke.
The difference between the two ends up lying in the definition of ones natural rights. Rousseau believed that the equality of man is what really needs to be preserved, and as a means of doing that in society we formed government; this is where the social contract in lies. We make a contract with the government to protect our civil liberties, and in doing so, give them the right to create a rule of authority in which we all agree. This set of laws would be called the 'general will' stating.
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of a whole." (Rousseau, 178)
Meaning that we give up a certain amount of our rights to further support the cause of our protection, and in return we get that protection. The basic premise is that the 'will of the many, out-weigh the will of the few.' This idea is continued along with the motions that make the government the servant of the people and not the other way around.
Jean-Jacques believed that the best form of government was that which best fit the area, as such did Locke.
"If, in the different States, the number of supreme magistrates should be in inverse ratio to the number of citizens, it follows that, generally, democratic government suits small States, aristocratic government those of middle size, and monarchy great ones. This rule is immediately deducible from the principle laid down. But it is impossible to count the innumerable circumstances which may furnish exceptions." (Rousseau, B.3)
While Rousseau took a lot of his influence for the works of Locke, but in his area he was looking to return the monarchy such that his area was large and he felt it should be ruled by only one person. Though he was highly influenced his ideas of quality rung new in the ears of political philosophers.
Overall each of these philosophers has had an important meaning and influence to our way of life. Through their ideas and observations on human nature, society, and government, each has meant an important part to history. Tomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all share in one thing, they are political philosophers that will represent throughout the rest of time for their insight, influence and effect on their societies and our current on today.