17th Century a time of change, often conflict. Wars between countries, but even worse civil wars within countries, civil wars made worse by religious division (Thirty Years' War, French Wars of Religion, English Civil War). How do you stop such conflicts? How do you create a stable, peaceful society? 17th century thinkers came up with some excellent suggestions: three thinkers I especially want to emphasize, Bossuet, Hobbes, Locke. Bossuet and Hobbes advance convincing arguments for strong almost unlimited government as the answer to society's problems. Locke, on the other hand, offers an even more convincing argument for more limited government. (Exam question).
BOSSUET
Jacques Bossuet French bishop during time of Louis XIV. Bishop of Condom. Lived 1627-1704. Tremendously popular preacher and one of most prolific theological writers of time: chosen to be tutor of dauphin, that is the heir to the French throne, and later to the dauphin's son the heir to the heir. Naturally enough, with such responsibility, Bossuet devoted considerable effort to figuring out how government might ideally operate. Also, naturally enough for a Bishop, he derived his ideas primarily from the scripture. We have his ideas in a book with the title, "the principles of politics derived from the scripture."
What form of government do scriptures teach? Bossuet maintains that they advocate monarchy. God himself a king, his earthly power deligated to kings. Uses examples like David and Solomon to show that this is the form of govt. that God intends. Further, says Bossuet, we can see this is the govt. God intends by the fact that monarchy is the most common, most ancient, most natural form of govt. (explain: countries of Europe, elsewhere: kings; back in history: kings, when there is another form of govt., degenerates quickly into anarchy: what do you get? Kings.
Monarchy, then, the form of govt. God intended. But what kind of monarchy? Limited? No--absolute, hereditary monarchy, with succession determined by male primogeniture. (explain).
This form of govt. is what God intends, and it is the form of govt. we ought to desire. Why? Most advantageous. King will regard country as own: look out for its interests: hereditary monarchy even better: long term interests.
But what if king is a tyrant? Shouldn't subjects rebel? No. Bossuet argues that subjects owe complete obedience to their sovereign regardless. Why? For one thing, to rebel disrupts the unity of the state and leads to civil war: by far the most undesirable state of affairs. Look at David's actions toward Saul, and the fact that the Jews are told to be obedient to Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar. What does a subject do when a ruler is harsh, cruel, or misguided? "Respectful remonstrances, without defiance or murmuring, and with prayers for their conversion."
Does this mean the king can do anything he wants? No. Bossuet goes to great lengths to show that a king has great responsibilities to his people, foremost of which are to ensure justice and peace--and the true religion. But it is God who places this responsibility on the king, and to God alone that he is answerable.
But what about freedom? Isn't that important. Very important, says Bossuet. But when are you free? When crime is everywhere? When there is fighting in the streets and disorder? Hardly. Only an unquestioned king can give us the peace and justice necessary for true freedom.
But at least the king should leave us free to practice our own religion? No, says Bossuet. Religion is the foundatation of justice and government. Even in pagan societies, religion serves an essential government function. The true religion provides and even firmer foundation for good government, and therefore a king must make every effort to ensure conformity to this religion.
Not convincing? Would Frenchmen have been better off in the 16th and 17th century if they had never challenged the authority of their king, or by constantly rebelling against him? Would they have been better off as 100% Catholic country or as a nation constantly threatened by religious civil war? Answer looked mighty clear to Bossuet--and to many of his contemporaries.
And yet, a real weakness with Bossuet's argument. He derives his proof from scripture. And what do the scriptures teach about monarchy? That it is the best form of govt.? No--when the people of Israel want a king, God warns them against it: and the history of Israel shows more the dangers of monarchy than its advantages. And so if you want to convince people to accept strong govt., scripture alone may not be enough. Leads us to another great thinker of 17th century, Thomas Hobbes.
HOBBES
Thomas Hobbes English writer and philosopher. Lived 1588-1679. He left England during civil war, chosen to tutor future Charles II. At same time, wrote a fascinating political treatise, Leviathan. Like Bossuet, saw strong govt. as key to avoiding civil war and disorder, but while he often uses scripture, his main argument is based on nature. Hobbes, unlike Bossuet, sees govt. as man-made, not divine in origin. Because we make our govt., we can choose whatever govt. we want. But what should we choose? Best way, is to look at way govt. is formed in first place.
Man born in state of nature. Perfectly free. Great! No, not great. Life in state of nature solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, short. (Explain each). Example of problems in state of nature: suppose I make for myself something nice (nice fur-lined jacket) or have something nice (smoked venison, lovely wife). How long, in state of nature? Not very long. So life good for big strong in state of nature? No! (Do you ever sleep?). Weakest of us can make things mighty tough on strong, stupidest of us can make things mighty unpleasant for bright. Further more, we will. Hobbes argues that, though we want justice, equity, modesty, mercy and the rest, our passions will make us violate all these things unless there is a strong power to keep us from doing so. Life not good for anyone. So:
We use our freedom to make a covenant, agreement with one another. This convenant we surrender our freedom to Leviathan, the state, so that our lives won't be solitary, poor, etc.
Since govt. is man-made, we can make any kind of govt. we like. But what should we choose? Democracy? Aristocracy? Monarchy? Monarchy the best. Why? People, including rulers, are selfish. So what one wants is form of govt. where rulers private interest is closest to public interest--that's monarchy. King make his country poor and weak and disordered? Not a chance. But whatever govt. We choose, we have no right to challenge it's authority. Why? Because the government is a commonwealth, e.g. it is the common wealth--to the advantage of all to be maintained.
Particularly interesting is Hobbes attitude to religion.
He argues that religion is essential to the security of the commonwealth,
and that therefore the sovereign has the right to determine what that religion
will be. Catholicism, Lutheranism--whatever he wants. But even
if Catholicism, it is a Catholicism where the Pope's authority is conditioned
on the sovereigns say so. We have no right at all to challenge the
state religion.
Now you can believe whatever you want--but when it comes to public
worship, you must conform. Hobbes argues that Christ's kingdom is
not of this world. Therefore, outward forms make no difference to
God--but they do make a difference to the security of the commonwealth.
Not convincing? Well, consider England in the 16th and 17th centuries. Are the English better off when they submit to their kings, or when they start civil wars? Are they better off when they fight each other over religion, or (as they did in the time of Elizabeth) pretty much accept the queen's dictates? Answer looked pretty clear to Hobbes.
There were, then, convincing arguments for strong government in the 17th century. And yet another 17th century thinker, John Locke, came up with an even more convincing argument for limited govt.
LOCKE
John Locke an important English philospher, psychologist, and theologian. He lived from 1632-1704. Almost by accident, he became one of the most important political thinkers ever to live. Locke a supporter of William and Mary, King and Queen who replaced James II. Thinkers like Bossuet and Hobbes would have rejected such a change as a completely unwarranted usurpation of a sovereign's authority. In his two treatises on Government, Locke attempts to show why the change was perfectly legitimate--and, incidently, comes up with an exceedingly important theory of govt.
Locke, like Hobbes, argues that in order to understand govt., we ought to look first at the way govt.'s are formed. Also like Hobbes, he says we should begin first by looking at life in the "State of Nature." But Locke's analysis of the state of nature is much different than Hobbes.
Locke argues that in the state of nature we have a number of rights, rights given us by God. Because they are given by God, they are inalienable, rights that cannot be taken away under any circumstances. What are these rights?
1. Life
2. Liberty (anything we want--one condition: may not interfere
with another's liberty)
3. Equality (not in strength, intellect: but no one boss of anyone
else)
4. Property (value of any object, labor that goes into it.
Person who labors should control object).
5. Contracts (e.g. marriage)
6. Reparation and restraint
Why would we leave state of nature? Which right excercising most? Reparation and restraint! Constantly at war. No good so, we use our right to contracts to form govt. What is this contract? Give up rep. and restraint to govt. so govt. will protect other natural rights.
From this clear what purpose of govt. is: to protect natural rights--and if govt. doesn't, and especially if govt. itself interferes, one has right to change govt. Obviously, considerably more freedom here--freedom even to change govt. if necessary.
But change to what kind of govt.? One that better protects natural rights. And what kind of govt. does this? Locke argues that there should be two separate branches of govt./legislative and executive. Law making and enforcing combined leads to abuse. So another reason to challenge govt. is when executive usurps legislative.
Further, in a properly constituted society, each will be free to choose own religion. There's a radical idea! Almost nobody before Locke advocates idea. Almost everyone else believed that a society should choose the right religion and stick to that or (like Hobbes) choose one religion, the religion of the sovereign, and stick to that. How could Locke possibly advocate toleration?
Easy enough. Locke believed Christianity was unquestionably true. Wrote book "The Reasonableness of Christianity," exceedingly impressive case for truth of Christian faith. Because he was so convinced Christianity was true, he believed that all Christianity needed was a fair opportunity in the marketplace of ideas. Just as consumers free to choose would pick good apples over rotten apples, they would, if free to choose, pick the true religion over anything else. And that goes as far as the issues that divide Christians are concerned too. If all are free to express their ideas, the truth will stand out, and inevitably triumph. The only thing that might stop the triumph of truth is its forceful suppression. Here, too, then is a limitation on govt.: it should not force anyone to follow any particular religious belief.
All of this attractive to English in 1689. Justified change of govt. James seemed a threat to usurp legislative powers, to be a threat to the natural rights of subjects, and to be a threat to free exercise of religion. And since people form govt., it was in their power to alter it and to institute new govt.
Now all this ought to sound easy and familiar to you. I
read from our own dec of independence, "We hold these truths to be self
evident, that all men are created equal, and that...."