Enlightenment Philosophes and Ideals PDF

Social Studies 20-1 Enlightenment Philosophes and Their Ideals The Scientific Revolution had a profound effect on political thinkers. If matter followed natural laws, could human behaviour also be explained by the same laws? This new examination of society led to the emergence of...

Social Studies 20-1 Enlightenment Philosophes and Their Ideals The Scientific Revolution had a profound effect on political thinkers. If matter followed natural laws, could human behaviour also be explained by the same laws? This new examination of society led to the emergence of the concepts of “natural law” and “natural rights” which have provided the foundation for much of modern political change toward democracy and equality. Natural law means that through reasoning, humans can discover what is fair, just, and “natural” in the political and social realms. Customs, tradition, or the edicts of kings cannot override natural rights. This new school of thought, which arose from the time period of the absolute monarchs, was called classical liberalism: the belief that government is necessary to protect the natural laws/rights of man to live freely and to thrive. The American and French Revolutions prompted political theorists to advance the ideology of classical liberalism. Classical liberals rejected the existing status quo, the privileges enjoyed by the favoured classes, and the injustice and inequality in society. For liberals, the task of political theory was to manage change in the best interests of society. Liberals advocated the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality, which they believed would lead to higher standards of morality and increased prosperity for all in society. They usually favoured republican forms of government in which citizens elected representatives to legislative bodies, and they called for some form of social contract (usually a written constitution) that guaranteed freedom and equality for all individuals, and precisely defined the political structure and institutions of society. The differences among the three main philosophers-Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau- in their approach to how government should be organized has to do with how each philosopher viewed the basic human nature/state of nature(without government). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) Thomas Hobbes examined natural law and the justification of absolutism. Hobbes's political philosophy was affected by his experiences living during the Scientific Revolution and the English Civil War. In his Leviathan (1651), Hobbes asserted that humans are born into a “state of nature,” in which life is a continual war because left to themselves, humans will engage in a violent struggle to survive by improving their own situation and hurting others: a state of “every man against every other man” competing for gain, glory, and security. Hobbes believed that the natural state of man was selfish and evil and that without government, man would be in a constant state of warfare. Hobbes argued that if humans are equal, it is in their ability to destroy one another. The only solution to this insecurity and chaos is for each individual to leave the state of nature by agreeing to a social contract with one another and with the sovereign, forming a commonwealth- in other words, humans would relinquish their freedom in return for the security provided by a Leviathan (all powerful ruler) who would impose authority from the top down. Man would be free by giving up his individual rights to an absolute ruler who will protect the freedom of the group by imposing order and peace (people are free when they are governed the most) through the use of fear. Hence, Hobbes supported dictatorship as the best means of protecting people from one another. Life without government, said Hobbes, is “nasty, brutish, and short.” The people had the authority to rebel and overthrow the ruler if the ruler lost power. John Locke (1632-1704) The most important defense of limited government based on natural law was written by the Englishman John Locke to justify the Glorious Revolution. Locke’s Second Treatise on Government (1689) takes issue with Hobbes's arguments. Locke believed that the natural state of man was to be reasonable and rational. In Locke’s state of nature, people are born free and equal and should freely enjoy natural rights of life, liberty, equality, and property and respect the rights of others. According to Locke, these inalienable rights were present before the development of human society. Locke asserts that although humans are basically rational, they still conflict in the state of nature over property. Such disputes create insecurity and limit the exercise of one’s liberties. Thus, to prevent such a situation, individuals enter into a social contract and leave the state of nature to better secure the right to property and other natural rights. Government power is limited to arbitrating disputes and providing order and public goods. Government, which rules with the consent of the governed (popular sovereignty) and the will of the majority, governs with a limited social contract (a contract between the government and the people) to protect the individual’s life, liberty, and property. Hence, people are free when they are governed the least; they give up some individual liberty to enjoy more security through government representation. Locke’s ideas influenced the development of the English government, although he did not offer any endorsement of mass democracy. Should governments abuse their power and engage in tyranny by not protecting their life, liberty, and property, society can exercise the right of rebellion to ensure their natural rights by overthrowing the government.. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) Rousseau believed that the natural state of man was neither good nor bad; rational nor irrational. He believed that people originally lived outside of civilization as noble savages. Rousseau argued that society corrupted people- his famous quote, “man is born free but everywhere is in chains,” implies the structural inequalities existed in society. Rousseau’s Discourses on the Arts and Sciences and Discourses on the Origin of Inequality Among Men portrayed civilization as corrupting humans’ natural inclination for mutual association, leading to exploitation and artificial divisions. Society was by its very nature corrupt, artificial, and unlikely to progress. In his influential book The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau argued that members of a society were collectively the sovereign. In an ideal society all individuals would participate directly in the formulation of policy and the creation of laws. In the absence of royalty, aristocracy, or other privileged elites, the general will is followed to make decisions, and to protect individuals and their freedom. The general will is the common good (what is best for society), but does not necessarily reflect the majority decision. By submitting to the general will, people will be free. Over time, the social contract has come to be referred to as a constitution between the government and the people. Rousseau disagreed with Locke about the nature of the social contract, which Locke asserted was made between the people and their ruler. Rousseau argued that the social contract was made by the people themselves with each other. Each individual surrendered his or her own liberty to the combined General Will, which then became the only sovereign power, and, regardless of the form of government, had the right to impose itself on the people, even when the majority was opposed. Most philosophes were writers, social critics, and publicists of new ideas, rather than professional philosophers. The mission of the philosophers was to pursue an intellectual study that subjected all of human custom and tradition to a systematic criticism (skepticism) using reason and natural laws. Rather than espousing revolution, the philosophes advocated progress through gradual acceptance of the Enlightenment message of reform. Most philosophes saw the state as the agency of progress, although the form the state would take was greatly disputed. Montesquieu argued for constitutional monarchy, Voltaire for enlightened absolutism, and Rousseau for direct democracy. Brief biographical and intellectual sketches of some of the most important Enlightenment philosophes follow. Baron de Montesquieu(1689-1755)—Montesquieu was a French Protestant and a member of the Bordeaux parlement; these aspects of his life influenced his writings. Montesquieu’s most important work was The Spirit of Laws (1748), based on his understanding of history and contemporary nations. Montesquieu concluded that geography, climate, and history influenced the forms of government and laws of each nation. Large nations tended toward despotism (Russia), medium-sized nations toward monarchy (France), and smaller nations toward republics (Switzerland). Montesquieu favoured a government like Britain’s, which incorporated the concept of a separation of powers with checks and balances to prevent absolutism, abuse of power, and ultimately, tyranny. Government functions could be divided into executive, legislative, and judicial functions. He believed that in a democracy, the problems of controlling those who we have given our consent to have power over us could be solved without Locke’s resort to revolution by simply separating the government powers (functions) into different branches (bodies) which have the power to limit the power of the other branches (bodies). For example, the separation of powers and checks and balances would prevent the abuse of power associated with each major political interest: monarchy-tyranny, oligarchy-factionalism, democracy-anarchy. Voltaire(1694-1778)—Francois-Marie Arouet, known by the pen name “Voltaire” advocated the ideals of the Enlightenment by infusing his writing with sarcasm, witty style, and commitment to intellectual freedom. Voltaire’s writing produced both admirers and critics, as he wrote about a wide range of interests. Voltaire’s main aim was to criticize religious fanaticism and hypocrisy. He argued for freedom of thought and against censorship and the Church, insisting that without religious tolerance and freedom of speech and the press, society is held back. Voltaire claimed that “revealed” religion made people stupid and cruel, expressed by his famous cry, “Crush the infamous thing!” which meant intolerance, bigotry, superstition and the Catholic Church. Like other philosophes, Voltaire advocated a rational belief in God, deism. Voltaire voiced his admiration for Britain’s balanced government and relative religious tolerance in Philosophical Letters on the English. Despite his Enlightenment ideals, Voltaire distrusted the shallow, ignorant masses and felt that progress would result from enlightened top-down reforms implemented by monarchy. He was an elitist, not a democrat.