Although this essay was written for my World History class, I believe it ties, however loosely, into my current theme of western philosophers. Therefore, I wanted to post it on my blog.
Author’s note
The contact between the Christian Europeans with the Muslim empires in the Middle East facilitated by the Crusades included the reintroduction of the ideologies of Graeco-Roman philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato to Europe. This contact, coupled with the rise of the scientific revolution, where the entire world was viewed logically, and the fallout of the thirty years war, led to the rise of the Enlightenment, a phase of philosophical thinking in Europe. Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire challenged the power of absolute monarchs by calling out the immorality behind the policies of absolute monarchs, countering and disproving the reason given by absolute monarchs for their actions, ‘the divine right of the king’, and laying out a framework for a better government.
The questions of freedom and autonomy plagued enlightenment thinkers during the early modern era because the European economy was starting to leave its agrarian roots, which allowed intellectuals time to think and question the ongoing dictatorial reign of the governments. John Locke’s contemporaries were the two biggest champions of monarchical absolutism: King Louis XIV of France and Maximillian I of the Holy Roman Empire. Both abused their power by ruling their respective countries without any checks. This distressed many because it took away their ability to be rational beings. The selections from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government argue that the nature of man is to make autonomous decisions, which has an air of Kantian morality, specifically the third categorical imperative, where freedom is defined as the autonomy of a man confined to a place not encroaching over other’s freedom. Locke’s argument directly challenges the authority of the kings because, under Locke’s definition of freedom, the power that impedes the freedom of others is illegitimate, which in turn calls the kings as illegitimate rulers. Locke furthers on the nature of laws by stating that their goals are to protect those freedoms, which exemplifies the immorality of the Kings’ rule. The complex nature of the style of the writing indicates that it was targeted towards fellow intellectuals and lawmakers.
Locke furthers his argument by attacking the root of the legitimacy argument by absolute monarchs of western society, the religion. Both of the aforementioned kings and nearly every single ruler in Europe has ruled under the doctrine of “the divine rights of the king,” where divine providence gifted the legitimacy of the rulers; therefore, those who oppose the king opposes the Christian god himself. Locke argues in a letter concerning toleration that because the Christian religion was extremely tumultuous and prone to civil wars, the leaders of the, whose legitimacy was based on divine providence, will not always be innocent. John Locke was living in the post-thirty-year war period, where thousands of Catholics and Protestants fought and died in Central Europe. Therefore divine providence is an unsubstantiated argument, and then in its extension, Kings do not have legitimacy. Voltaire’s Treatise on Tolerance broadens Locke’s argument by stating that religious dogma lack logic and should not be regarded in any scenario. This piece was written to convince both clergymen and the common man in a manner by contrasting religion in various scenarios to produce a different view of religion than the one expressed during the time. While Locke merely disproves “the divine right of the kings,” Voltaire undermines the entire institution of religion, which leaves the kings with no legitimacy and in turn, a higher rate of civil disobedience.
Any counter-argument that brings down an institution has the burden to provide a counter-plan, which Baron de Montesquieu delivered in his “the Spirit of the laws” . Montesquieu envisions a government the legislative, judicial, and executive powers are divided into various organizations so that they can keep a check on each other. Because a counter-plan is a product of the status quo, Montesquieu indirectly accuses the monarchs of the time as abusers of power since they have the powers to both writes and enforce the laws, which challenges the very existence of such absolute monarchical government.
By calling out the immorality of the laws, uprooting the legitimacy argument of the monarchs, and proposing a new form of government, the enlightenment thinkers laid the foundation of the eventual downfall of absolute monarchs. As it sparked revolutions such as the French, American, Latin American, African, Indian, Asian, and many more, the ideals of the thinkers are embedded into the mentality of modern society.
Conscience of Aniket 