Hobbes Locke Montesquieu And Rousseau On Government Answer Key

Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau on Government: An Answer Key to Political Philosophy

The 17th and 18th centuries witnessed a flourishing of political thought, with thinkers grappling with fundamental questions about the nature of government, the rights of individuals, and the best way to organize society. Among the most influential figures were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baron de Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. While sharing some common ground, their philosophies diverged significantly, shaping the course of Western political thought and influencing modern democratic systems. This comprehensive exploration delves into their key ideas, highlighting their similarities and differences, and providing an "answer key" to understanding their contributions to political philosophy.

Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan and the Social Contract

Thomas Hobbes, writing amidst the English Civil War, painted a stark picture of human nature in his masterpiece, Leviathan (1651). He famously argued that the natural state of humanity is a "war of all against all," characterized by constant fear, violence, and the absence of morality. Life, he famously declared, is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

The Social Contract and the Sovereign

To escape this brutal state of nature, Hobbes proposed a social contract, where individuals surrender certain rights to an absolute sovereign—a monarch or a powerful assembly—in exchange for security and order. This sovereign possesses unlimited power, necessary to enforce laws and maintain peace. For Hobbes, the alternative—anarchy—was far worse than even the most oppressive rule. The emphasis is on order and security above all else.

Key Hobbesian Concepts:

• State of Nature: A war of all against all, driven by self-interest and the absence of morality.
• Social Contract: An agreement among individuals to surrender certain rights to a sovereign in exchange for security and order.
• Sovereign Power: Absolute and unlimited authority necessary to maintain peace and prevent the collapse of society.
• Individual Rights: Subordinated to the need for maintaining order and security.

John Locke: Natural Rights and Limited Government

John Locke, writing in the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, offered a contrasting vision to Hobbes's absolutism. In his Two Treatises of Government (1689), Locke argued that individuals possess inherent natural rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights precede government and cannot be legitimately violated.

The State of Nature and the Social Contract (Locke's Version)

Locke's state of nature, while not utopian, was significantly less brutal than Hobbes's. It was governed by natural law, which dictates that individuals should respect each other's rights. However, the absence of an impartial judge to resolve disputes led to the need for a government. Locke's social contract thus aimed not to escape a state of utter chaos, but to improve an already relatively functional, albeit imperfect, state of nature by establishing a system to protect rights and resolve disputes fairly.

Limited Government and the Right to Revolution

Locke championed limited government, advocating for a system of checks and balances to prevent tyranny. Crucially, he argued that if the government violates the natural rights of its citizens, the people have the right to revolt and establish a new government. This concept profoundly influenced the American Revolution and the drafting of the US Constitution.

Key Lockean Concepts:

• Natural Rights: Inherent rights possessed by individuals, including the rights to life, liberty, and property.
• Natural Law: Moral principles that govern human behavior in the state of nature.
• Limited Government: A government constrained by laws and subject to the consent of the governed.
• Right to Revolution: The right of the people to overthrow a government that violates their natural rights.

Montesquieu: Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances

Baron de Montesquieu, in his The Spirit of the Laws (1748), focused on the structure of government itself, arguing for a system of separation of powers to prevent tyranny. He observed that concentrating power in a single entity, be it a monarch or a parliament, inevitably leads to abuse.

The Three Branches of Government

Montesquieu proposed dividing governmental power among three distinct branches: the legislative, responsible for making laws; the executive, responsible for enforcing laws; and the judicial, responsible for interpreting laws. Crucially, each branch should be independent and possess the means to check the power of the other two. This system of checks and balances prevents any one branch from becoming too powerful and ensures the protection of individual liberties.

Influence on Modern Democracies

Montesquieu's ideas profoundly influenced the design of many modern democratic governments, including the United States. The US Constitution's separation of powers between the Congress (legislative), the President (executive), and the Supreme Court (judicial), along with its intricate system of checks and balances, is a direct reflection of Montesquieu's vision.

Key Montesquieu Concepts:

• Separation of Powers: Dividing governmental power among distinct branches.
• Checks and Balances: A system of mutual limitations and controls among the branches of government.
• Independent Judiciary: A judicial branch free from undue influence from the other branches.
• Prevention of Tyranny: The primary goal of the separation of powers system.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The General Will and Popular Sovereignty

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his The Social Contract (1762), presented a radically different conception of the social contract than Hobbes and Locke. He argued that government should be based on the general will, the collective will of the people aimed at the common good.

The General Will and the Social Contract

Rousseau's social contract involved a complete surrender of individual rights to the community. This doesn't mean individuals lose their liberty entirely; rather, they gain a higher form of freedom by participating in the collective decision-making process that shapes the general will. Obedience to the laws, therefore, is not submission to an external authority but self-governance.

Direct Democracy and Popular Sovereignty

Rousseau advocated for a form of direct democracy, where citizens directly participate in the making of laws. He believed this direct participation was crucial for the general will to truly represent the collective good. This emphasis on popular sovereignty, where ultimate political authority resides in the people, has had a lasting impact on democratic theory.

Key Rousseauian Concepts:

• General Will: The collective will of the people, aimed at the common good.
• Popular Sovereignty: Ultimate political authority resides in the people.
• Direct Democracy: Citizens directly participate in the making of laws.
• Civic Virtue: Citizens must prioritize the common good over their individual interests.

Comparing and Contrasting the Four Philosophers

While these four thinkers all grappled with the nature of government and the social contract, their views differed significantly.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Influence

Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau’s contributions to political philosophy continue to shape contemporary political discourse. While their individual philosophies vary greatly, they all offer crucial insights into the enduring tension between individual liberty and societal order, the nature of government legitimacy, and the best means of preventing tyranny. Their ideas remain vital tools for understanding the complexities of governance and shaping just and equitable societies. Studying their works offers a deeper understanding of the foundations of modern democratic systems and the ongoing debate about the ideal balance between individual freedom and collective well-being. The enduring relevance of their work underscores their profound and lasting impact on the development of political thought and practice. Their insights continue to inspire contemporary discussions on political organization, human rights, and the pursuit of a just and equitable society. Their legacies serve as a powerful reminder that the quest for an ideal political system is an ongoing and evolving process.