There have been many critiques written about both John Locke’s and Thomas Hobbes philosophies. Within the guidelines of Hobbes philosophy, the absolute dictators that he believed would remain in power usually got overthrown, mainly due to them becoming corrupt with power and violating their people’s rights. In other words, these kings become tyrants. I agree with all of these critiques. Having one ruler who has unlimited power will corrupt them. They will stop caring for their people and strip them of their rights. When people have too much power to govern and control, people become jealous and others develop hatred for their once beloved king. Eventually, they will be revolted against. Having a tyrant as ruler does not end in peace,but having a democracy has many challenges as well. Locke’s philosophy lacks decision making. Reaching a consensus that everyone is happy with is near impossible and when people become elected for senate, they gain more interest in making people happy to get reelected instead of making critical decisions. With this current philosophy, those who are rich gain wealth, while those who are poor lose wealth. I also agree with these critiques, how decision making becomes very difficult and corruption can still affect elections, however I agree with Locke’s philosophy more than Hobbes. Having a democracy allows the people to project their voice and overall have more opportunities.
No comments:
Post a Comment