Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on John Locke/Second Treatise. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 3 page essay that discusses the political philosophy of John Locke as set forth in his Second Treatise of Government (1690). The writer focuses on Locke's position that governments derive sovereignty from the consent of the governed and that this consent can be withdrawn. No additional sources cited.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_khjlst.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
taken for granted in much of the world today, it was a radical idea in the late seventeenth century, as other scholars, such as Sir Robert Filmer (mentioned in Lockes
preface), argued in favor of the divine right of kings. Examination of the first several chapters of the Second Treatise reveals the premises on which Locke based his political philosophy.
In chapter 1, Locke begins by recounting his arguments from the First Treatise, which effectively refute Filmers position concerning the divine origin of sovereignty. He also points out
that it is important not to confuse the different types of power, as they each have different characteristics. In this regard, in order to define political power, Locke addresses what
he calls the "state of nature," that is, human instinct. Continuing with this train of thought in chapter 2, Locke explains that, in nature, all men are equal, with
no one individual having power over another. He asserts however, that natural law exists that requires that punishment should fit the crime. Sect 13, chapter 2, states "That in the
state of nature, every one has the executive power of the law of nature" (Locke, 1996). Locke readily admits that a man judging his own case is not inclined to
judge himself harshly. However, from this premise, he points out that "absolute monarchs are but men" (Sect. 13, chapter 2) (Locke, 1996). Therefore, if government is to remedy the problem
of men being judges in their own cases, it is not reasonable for one man (the king) to have the power to command a multitude, the liberty to judge his
own case, and the power to do with his subjects as he pleases without having anyone to question or control his excesses (Locke, 1996). Rather than presenting a monarch as
...