1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Zolol [24]
3 years ago
10

Based on what you have read, explain the key differences in the views of Hobbes and Locke on the social contract. Write two to t

hree sentences that identify the central points of each person’s argument.
History
2 answers:
Aleksandr [31]3 years ago
3 0
The views of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke regarding the social contract are based on the idea of natural law.  Natural law can be described as a universal law that everyone is subject to, regardless of their location.  Both Hobbes and Locke also believed that a government was necessary to establish order and keep the peace.  This is where their differences end.  Starting with the same premise, both philosophers come to very different conclusions about the role of the government in the social contract.  

Thomas Hobbes believed that absolute monarchy was the best form of government because humans were violent by nature.  It was necessary to maintain order and peace, so people must give up their freedom to live obediently under a ruler who would protect them.  According to Hobbes, people do not have the right to rebel against a government who is protecting them, no matter how unjust, because they relinquished their rights in the contract.

John Locke came to a completely different conclusion about the role of government in the contract.  The primary difference between the two men is that Locke trusted human beings.  He believed that people were naturally reasonable and moral, and would do the right thing.  Locke also argued that people are endowed with natural rights of life, liberty, and property.  According to him, the sole purpose of government was to protect these rights, and people have the right to break the contract if the government failed to do this.  In fact, the people are obligated to break the contract.  John Locke's ideas of natural rights was an important influence on Thomas Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.  
aliya0001 [1]3 years ago
3 0

Hobbes believed that a social contract was necessary to protect people from their own worst instincts. On the other hand, Locke believed that a social contract was necessary to protect people's natural rights. Locke believed that if government did not protect people's rights, they could reject it.

You might be interested in
True or false: the eiffel tower was built during the french revolution. <br> a. True <br> b. False
ankoles [38]
The answer to the question is false, but it was built to celebrate the centennial of the french revolution.
4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why it is important to study the articles of confederation?
Neporo4naja [7]
Because learning what they did wrong helps us understand why the founding fathers had to craft the constitution.  Understanding the fault of the Articles leads to respect of our current Constitution.
4 0
2 years ago
The americans known as war hawks felt that britain was treating the united states as if it were.
Maslowich

Answer:

The Americans known as war hawks felt that Britain was treating the united states as if it were STILL A BRITISH COLONY.

5 0
2 years ago
Develop four hypothesis of different ways to end the war with Japan. Be sure the suggestions are realistic and reflect the perio
Snezhnost [94]
One option can be a full military campaign based on sending soldiers to take Japanese territory. One advantage is that the number of killed civilians would be drastically lower while another would be that nuclear weaponry would not be used and would not destroy the environment. Disadvantage would be the high amount of soldier casualties and another can be possibly a very lengthy war effort.

Another option could be a complete blockade of Japan. Since it's an island, it would be possible to blockade it from all sides and wait for Japanese people to surrender since they wouldn't be able to sustain for long without importing things. One advantage would be preventing the death of Japanese civilians and preventing deaths of US troops. Disadvantages would be that might actually endure hardships and still wouldn't surrender, and another could be that they might fight like guerrillas and attack ships and American troops

Another option can be an allied assault in which the US could attack together with Soviets and split Japan like Germany. Advantage would be reduced amount of killed Japanese civilians and reduced amount of killed American troops. The disadvantage could be that a split Japan would be problematic like split Germany was because of Communism, and another could be that it would enable soviets to spread their influence even more throughout Asia

Fourth option could be having a demonstration of the power of nuclear weaponry somewhere safe. The United States could show what they are capable of in order to scare Japan into surrender. One advantage is that Japanese civilians would not be harmed and another can be that they would still show the world how strong the United States bombs are. One disadvantage could be that Japanese people might still not surrender since there were many who wanted to stay in the war even after the two nukes, and another disadvantage could be that Japan might began preparing for nuclear warfare since they would now know what awaits them

The best possible option could be as a recommendation the naval blockade. If a naval blockade was combined with bombardment of strategic military areas then Japan would inevitably surrender even though it would take a few months at least. It would cost a lot but it would save the lives of many people who didn't have to suffer because of their government.
5 0
2 years ago
The United States Supreme Court did not claim the right to declare laws unconstitutional until 1803 so it was very weak at first
schepotkina [342]
False, tricky question.

Although it seems like establishing judicial review gives the court much more power than they previously had... The court claimed the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional because it gave the court TOO much power. This is very paradoxical and quite humorous but in the end they traded powers established in the judiciary act for judicial review.
7 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • Which of these events was MOST responsible for Senator Joseph McCarthy's concern about the spread of Communism after World War I
    15·2 answers
  • How did Islam help spread Arabic culture?
    8·2 answers
  • Muhammad managed a caravan business in Mecca before he became known for the introduction of Islam.
    8·1 answer
  • Which answer best explains Hernando De Soto’s goal of exploration to the new world
    10·1 answer
  • What is the constitutional basis for the expressed powers of the federal government?
    14·2 answers
  • what is the attitude expressed by general johndewitt toward the japanese American and what would his attitude toward internment
    11·1 answer
  • Using the following passage from Voltaire's crucial Enlightenment text, the Philosophical Dictionary, to answer the following qu
    14·2 answers
  • Which of the following did President Nixon support during his first term?
    6·2 answers
  • How did Americans perceive the threat posed by the Soviets and nuclear war in the 1950s? They believed that a nuclear war was im
    15·2 answers
  • Question 1 of 10
    6·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!