Progression of
Society in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Europe
The idea of society progressing to a more perfect state was the central
theme of the writings and philosophies of intellectuals such as Thomas Hobbes
and John Locke. The progression of society occurred because European countries
and societies discovered a representative form of government gave the general
population a greater voice in government than a government headed by a single,
absolute leader, therefore European philosophy about government evolved to a
more sound and perfect form. The director of the idea of a republic over a
monarchy was John Locke, one of the most influential philosophers about
government.
John Locke viewed
humans as capable of having control over their lives and affairs, and he saw
humans as being generally virtuous. A representative or republican form of
government best fit Locke's “optimistic” perspective of human nature. In his
Second
Treatise on Government, Locke presents the qualities of a republican form
of government. Locke felt government had “no other end or measure, when in the
hands of the magistrate, but to preserve the members of that society in their
lives, liberties, and possessions,” (Locke, 1) and “the end of government is
the good of mankind,” (Locke, 3). The monarchy form of government, Locke
argued, "cannot be an absolute, arbitrary power over their (citizens)
lives and fortunes" (Locke, 1). Rebellion is an option given by Locke in
response to injustices by the ruling body. Locke defines rebellion as “being an
opposition, not to persons, hut authority, which is founded only in the
constitutions and laws of the government" (Locke, 3). The ideas of Locke
about government were a template for the establishment of governments in the
United States and France. The fact Locke's philosophy are still valid in the
present day demonstrate the evolution to a more perfect state. A government
headed by an absolute monarch did not survive because Locke was correct that
humans can control their lives and humans should have representation in
government. In England, the role of the monarch has shifted from head of the
government to a useless entity in the present day. It seems the only purpose of
the monarch today is to sell supermarket tabloids and to shock and entertain
the population. The idea of evolution is changing over time to a more perfect
being. If monarchy was the prudent way to run government, monarchs would still
wield power in England and the Parliament would still answer to the monarch.
Therefore, the “fittest” and more perfect form of government survived and is
still valid some three hundred years later.
In sharp contrast, Thomas Hobbes observed human nature to be selfish. He speculates man has a certain amount of power and he will “use his own power as he will himself or the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own- life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto" (Hobbes, pgs. 3-4). Hobbes supported a, government headed by an absolute ruler that imposed his will and agenda on the citizens due to his “pessimistic” convictions about human nature. In his controversial work The Leviathan, Hobbes portrays the condition of man as “a condition of war of every one against everyone" (Hobbes, 3). Unlike Locke, Hobbes opposed any form of rebellion because any decisions or laws made by the ruler were in the best interest of the people. It is obvious Hobbes' philosophy was not popular because citizens believed and still believe one person cannot speak for the majority. Revolutions that have occurred all throughout time have one common theme, the government not representing the majority and general good of the citizens under its rule. What if the decisions made by the leader prove not to represent the majority? Hobbes would answer by Saying humans are not capable of thinking about the common good, only about what promotes their well being. What evidence is there that the ruler is not selfish and does not fit the human profile represented by Hobbes? One writer states, “It is puzzling why Hobbes believed that absolute rulers would be more benevolent and less egoistic than all other people” (Kagan, 506). Hobbes has no answer to this observation. The philosophy of government by Hobbes produces more questions than answers which is a sign of imperfection. The ideas of Hobbes did not survive because of imperfection. Hobbes' philosophies evolved a few years later to the more perfect ideas of John Locke, which are more logical No government headed by an absolute ruler has survived or thrived like the republican form of government endorsed by Locke. Observe Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s or the former Soviet Union led by Lenin or Stalin and decide if an absolute ruler is the best and most efficient way to operate a government. The governmental view of Hobbes have no as demonstrated by the fact that his imperfect ideas evolved to a superior and more perfect theory of government.
An example of the evolution from an absolute monarch to a republic is
the English Bill of Rights written in 1688 and ratified in 1689. The
Bill of Rights is a list of grievances about the monarchy. The Bill of Rights
marks the beginning of the shift in power from the monarchy to the
Parliament in Great Britain. The document reduces the power of the monarch and
increases the power of the Parliament. The Bill of Rights forced the monarch to
be accountable to Parliament. For instance, the document caused "the
pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal
authority without consent of Parliament illegal” (English Bill of Rights, 2).
The document does nothing more than point out the superiority of the
ideas of Locke to the ideas of Hobbes. Why would Parliament need the Bill of
Rights if the monarch knew what was in the best interest of the people as proposed
by Hobbes? The ideas conveyed by the Bill of Rights are entirely the same as
the ideas of Locke. The manuscript is still in effect to this day, which is yet
another illustration of the perfection of Locke's opinions about government.
In conclusion, society progressed to a more perfect state because
governments in Europe embraced the concepts developed by John Locke by removing
power from the single leader of the government to a legislative body composed
of representatives elected by the population. Contrary to the writings of
Thomas Hobbes, members of society should have a voice in government and should
have the right to rebel when treated unfairly by the ruling body. The evidence
suggests government according to Hobbes was too weak and possessed too many
flaws to survive so his theory evolved to the more perfect and “fit” system
developed by John Locke a concept more commonly known as Social Darwinism.
English Bill of
Rights. 1689 (The Avalon
Project, 1996) p.2
Hobbes, Thomas. “Leviathan, Chaps. 13- 14”.
In The Leviathan. 1651 Archived at: www.fordham.edw/halsall/mod/hobbes-lev13.html,
p 3-4