A Justified Rebellion - Essay Example

When are people justified in rebelling from a government? Introduction John Locke is one of the most influential philosophers in the history of western thought. His main concern was how people should be governed, how governments should be considered legitimate and how society should function for all its members. He is one of the greatest contributors to liberal thought and many of his opinions on the rights of man, liberty, independence, revolution and property have made it to practical implementations. These are most clearly represented in the shape of the United States Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution but other documents which support ‘rebellion’ can also be credited to Locke. Simply put, whenever a government fails to keep up the social contract it has with the citizens, rebellion against that government becomes justified according to Locke and that rebellion is not illegal or unjust. Therefore, it is important to understand the social contract, the idea of rebellion and how Locke sees the legitimacy of government for any student of History, sociology and even philosophy. Additionally, comparisons can be made in terms of how other philosophers such as Hobbes have seen the legitimacy of government as opposed to Locke to fully understand the position Locke takes on what a government should do to keep the social contract. The Social Contract The social contract theory is a common concept used in many different fields such as political science, economics and sociology. It basically suggests that there is a contract which exists between the state and the individuals who are part of the state regarding their individual rights and privileges. A social contract can also exist between a company/organization and its members or a social group and the participants of the group. The idea of a social contract has been developed and expanded greatly by philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke amongst many others (Wikipedia, 2006). However, the Ideas of Locke are very important in this case because he was the first to establish the criteria for a social contract and then establish the course a people should take up if their own government does not uphold its end of the bargain. Hobbes was the earlier of the two philosophers and outlined his ideas concerning a social contract in his magnum opus titled Leviathan. Hobbes suggests that the natural inclination of mankind breaks men into strong and weak. The strength of a strong man may come from his physical abilities or his mental prowess but in either case, he has an advantage over the weak. However, this advantage to the strong is not so great that they stop fearing death and if a person is faced with death s/he has to avoid it by whatever means possible (Williams, 2006). In fact, this threat of death can come from a combined force of weaker individuals as well therefore the natural world creates a constant struggle and war between all individuals. Wherever such a state exists life would be brutal, hard and very harsh. Of course, the clear situation where such a state exists is the situation of war where every man has to fend for himself. Hobbes suggests that all men have a desire to disengage from war if they have to face their own deaths. Therefore, it is the fear of death which leads human beings to form civil societies that function under some form of authority (Williams, 2006). Locke certainly takes a different approach since fear is not a valid tool for creating governmental legitimacy. According to Hobbes, the creation of this authority takes away some of the freedoms enjoyed by man in his natural state and in turn gives men a state of internal peace within the society and protection if another groups attacks the same society. To function as an accepted power, the authority must be a ‘Leviathan’ which represents absolute power within that group. Additionally, the authority needs to be strong in order to wage war and defend the people if necessary from outside aggression (Williams, 2006). Fundamentally, Hobbes would function very well as a citizen if he gave up a few of his naturally granted freedoms in exchange for security, peace and protection from outside influences. It must be noted that Hobbes comes across as a monarchist and supports having a single figure to represent a society much as a popular dictator or a benevolent king would be expected to. Additionally, his masterpiece Leviathan was written during a period of great turmoil in England when the English Civil War was taking place and Hobbes does his best to convince the readers that a central authority figure is the best way to manage a society. Abuse of power by the authority figure can be accepted as a price for peace and freedom and any checks or balances on such a figure would only create a hindrance (Williams, 2006). Therefore, a Leviathan who controls civilian governments must be given complete control over all branches of government including civil authority, military control, and the judiciary. Additionally, the king of the realm should also be allowed to give his decrees on matters of faith since a lack of union in matters of faith can also lead to discord and war (Williams, 2006). In fact, idea this leads to the central difference between the ideas of Hobbes and Locke since Locke dose not agree to give so much power to the ruler of any state. A Justified Rebellion Locke believes that a ruler or a government must establish its own legitimacy before it seeks the consent of the governed to take away certain rights. While Hobbes comes across as a believer in the force of authority and the strength of a central figure even as per the title of his work, Leviathan, Locke gives a more positive view of government. For example, he does not suggest that governments have to be created by force but rather that legitimate governmental authorities can only be established when the people of a state agree to be governed by a particular person (Uzgalis, 2001). This is the essence and root of the democratic ideal that government has to be for the people, of the people and by the people. According to Locke, wherever such governments exist, the rule of law prevails and justice can be distributed to everyone. Of course even a kingship or a monarchy can perform these functions therefore it is possible for the subjects to be ruled by a single person rather than a democratically elected governmental body. However, even a king must accept the rule of law and behave in a manner acceptable to the people of he can be removed from power by force (Uzgalis, 2001). A legitimate king, government or any other authority remains legitimate as long as it accepts the people’s rights to life, liberty, health, and the ownership of property. Additionally, it must protect the subjects from others who would seek to take away life, liberty or any other basic rights given to the people (Uzgalis, 2001). On the other hand, an illegitimate government would simply not be able to protect the citizens or refuse to protect them at all or even engage in the violation of those rights. Dealing with such governments or kings is approached differently by both Hobbes and Locke since Hobbes accepts these trespasses as a side effect of the protection given to the majority of the citizens. On the other hand, Locke’s answer to bad government is simple. Bad government is illegitimate government and rebellion against an illegitimate government is perfectly justifiable (Uzgalis, 2001). The despot so readily accepted by Hobbes would be sent quickly to the guillotine by Locke. Again, it must be noted that Locke was living in a time where regicide had to be justified by those who supported the rebellion. His ideas as well as those presented by Hobbes have regularly featured as the primary motive behind rebellions and revolutions across the world of which the most famous was the American Revolution. No doubt that the Founding Fathers of America were greatly impressed by the ideas of Locke and understood that the legitimacy of King George could be very easily questioned since he had not taken the necessary/required steps to protect the lives, liberty or the property of his American subjects. In conclusion, the ideas of Hobbes and Locke are both valuable since Hobbes lays down the foundations of why governments are necessary and how a government should be established to protect the governed. Locke agrees with most of Hobbes ideas but expands the argument concerning the social contract by suggesting that governments have to be legitimate in order to be accepted as rightful authorities. Between the two it seems that Locke is the historical winner since more states moved towards establishing democracies than kingdoms over the past years but it seems like Hobbes might be the final winner since many democratically elected officials today act as nothing more than kings. Works Cited Wikipedia (2006). Social Contract. Retrieved January 3, 2007 from Wikipedia.org website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract Williams, G. (2006). Thomas Hobbes. Retrieved January 4, 2006 from The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy website: http://www.iep.utm.edu/h/hobmoral.htm Uzgalis, W. (2001). John Locke. Retrieved January 5, 2006 from Stanford University website: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ Read More