Hobbes and Locke both discussed the nature of government and the authority of rulers, but their views on the divine rights of kings significantly differ:
-
Hobbes's Perspective: In "Leviathan," Hobbes argues for a strong, absolute sovereign to maintain peace and order. While he does not explicitly base his philosophy on divine rights, he implies that a powerful ruler is necessary to prevent chaos. In Hobbes's view, the authority of the sovereign can be justified through social contract theory, where individuals relinquish some freedoms in exchange for protection and stability, hinting at a form of legitimacy tied to the ruler’s authority over the social contract rather than divine mandate.
-
Locke's Perspective: Locke, on the other hand, in "Two Treatises of Government," argues against the divine right of kings. He believes that legitimate government is derived from the consent of the governed and that rulers are accountable to the people. Locke emphasizes natural rights (life, liberty, property) and argues that any government that fails to protect these rights can be overthrown. Hence, he firmly rejects the notion that kings have an intrinsic divine right to rule.
Comparison: In summary, Hobbes endorses a form of authoritative rule which can imply a 'divine sanction' for maintaining social order, while Locke explicitly challenges the divine right of kings and advocates for a government based on the consent of the governed and the protection of individual rights.
1 answer