Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The 17th century witnessed a profound shift in political thought, moving away from divine right theories towards notions of natural rights and limited government. John Locke’s *Two Treatises of Government* (1689) is a cornerstone of liberal political philosophy. While often contrasted with Thomas Hobbes’s advocacy for absolute sovereignty in *Leviathan* (1651), Peter Laslett, a prominent Locke scholar, controversially asserted that Robert Filmer, a staunch defender of patriarchalism, was Locke’s primary intellectual opponent. This assertion challenges the conventional narrative and necessitates a detailed examination of Locke’s engagement with both thinkers to ascertain the validity of Laslett’s claim.
Understanding the Intellectual Landscape
To assess Laslett’s assertion, it’s crucial to understand the core tenets of Hobbes, Filmer, and Locke. Hobbes, writing in the aftermath of the English Civil War, argued for a social contract leading to an absolute sovereign to maintain order, believing human nature was inherently selfish and life in a state of nature “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Filmer, on the other hand, justified patriarchal authority based on biblical interpretations, arguing that the king’s power derived from Adam’s original dominion over his family, extending through primogeniture. Locke, in contrast, posited natural rights – life, liberty, and property – existing prior to government, and advocated for a limited government based on the consent of the governed.
Robert Filmer’s Patriarchal Theory
Filmer’s *Patriarcha* (published posthumously in 1680) presented a hierarchical view of society where the king held absolute power by divine right, mirroring the authority of a father over his family. He believed that individuals were naturally subordinate to a patriarchal head and that political authority was simply an extension of this familial structure. He rejected the idea of a state of nature governed by natural law, arguing that obedience was a natural duty. This was a direct challenge to emerging notions of individual liberty and popular sovereignty.
Hobbes’s Leviathan and Locke’s Response
Locke *did* address Hobbes, but primarily to critique his justification for absolute sovereignty. Locke argued against Hobbes’s pessimistic view of human nature, asserting that individuals in the state of nature were governed by natural law and possessed inherent reason. He disagreed with Hobbes’s claim that the social contract required surrendering all rights to the sovereign. However, Locke’s critique of Hobbes was relatively brief and focused on the consequences of absolute power rather than a detailed refutation of Hobbes’s foundational arguments. Locke’s primary concern wasn’t preventing a descent into chaos as Hobbes feared, but preventing tyranny.
Locke’s Direct Engagement with Filmer
The *First Treatise of Government* is almost entirely dedicated to dismantling Filmer’s arguments. Locke systematically refuted Filmer’s biblical interpretations, challenging his claims about Adam’s dominion and the hereditary right of kings. He argued that even if Adam had absolute authority, it didn’t automatically transfer to his descendants. Locke meticulously deconstructed Filmer’s arguments point by point, demonstrating their logical flaws and historical inaccuracies. He questioned the very notion of patriarchal power as a justification for political authority. This exhaustive engagement with Filmer’s ideas demonstrates the centrality of Filmer’s theory to Locke’s project.
Comparative Analysis: The Nature of the Antagonism
The difference lies in the *nature* of the antagonism. Locke’s disagreement with Hobbes was largely about the *form* of government – whether it should be absolute or limited. However, his disagreement with Filmer was more fundamental, concerning the *legitimacy* of political power itself. Filmer’s theory directly challenged Locke’s core principles of natural rights and individual liberty. Locke needed to dismantle Filmer’s justification for absolute power before he could even begin to construct his own theory of legitimate government. Hobbes’s theory, while influential, didn’t pose the same direct threat to Locke’s foundational principles.
| Thinker | Core Argument | Locke’s Response | Nature of Antagonism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas Hobbes | Absolute sovereignty is necessary for order. | Argued for limited government and natural rights. | Form of government – absolute vs. limited. |
| Robert Filmer | King’s power derives from patriarchal authority by divine right. | Systematically refuted Filmer’s biblical and logical arguments. | Legitimacy of political power – divine right vs. consent of the governed. |
Laslett’s Argument and its Significance
Laslett’s assertion highlights that Locke’s primary objective wasn’t simply to advocate for a different form of government, but to fundamentally challenge the very basis of traditional political authority. By focusing on Filmer, Locke aimed to delegitimize the prevailing ideology that justified absolute monarchy. This reinterpretation of Locke’s intellectual context has significantly influenced scholarship, emphasizing the importance of understanding the specific historical and political debates that shaped his thought.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Laslett’s assertion that Filmer, not Hobbes, was Locke’s main antagonist holds considerable weight. While Locke engaged with Hobbes’s ideas, his most sustained and direct engagement was with Filmer’s patriarchal theory. Locke’s *First Treatise* is a meticulous dismantling of Filmer’s arguments, demonstrating that Filmer’s ideas posed a more fundamental challenge to Locke’s core principles of natural rights and limited government. Understanding this intellectual context is crucial for a comprehensive understanding of Locke’s political philosophy and its enduring legacy.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.