0
What did Thomas Hobbes argue that was the most effective government?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Thomas Hobbes argued that an absolute monarchy was the most effective form of government. He believed that a powerful sovereign ruler was necessary to prevent the chaos and conflict that he believed would result from people's natural state of self-interest and competition.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What did John Locke and Thomas Hobbes argue about?
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both wrote about political philosophy, but they had different views on the role of government. Hobbes believed that a strong central authority was needed to maintain order and prevent chaos, while Locke argued for a more limited government that protected people's natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
What did Thomas Hobbes argue?
Thomas Hobbes argued that human nature is inherently self-interested and driven by a desire for power. He believed that in the state of nature, without a governing authority, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes advocated for a social contract whereby individuals relinquish some freedoms to a sovereign ruler in exchange for protection and stability.
Ideas on an argument to write an essay on Hobbes and Locke?
You could argue that while both Hobbes and Locke advocated for a social contract theory, their ideas on the role of government and individual rights differ significantly. Hobbes believed in a powerful, centralized government to maintain order, while Locke favored a limited government with a focus on protecting individual rights and property. Comparing and contrasting these two perspectives can highlight the fundamental differences between their philosophies on governance and human nature.
How might people who supported parliament over the monach have argued against Hobbes view?
Supporters of Parliament over the monarchy could argue against Hobbes by emphasizing the importance of checks and balances within a government. They might also stress the value of individual rights and freedoms, which could be threatened by an all-powerful monarchy as Hobbes proposed. Additionally, they could point out that a government based on consent of the governed, as advocated by Parliament supporters, leads to a more stable and just society compared to a monarchy that relies on absolute power.
What is Paine's main idea OR thesis?
Thomas Paine's main idea in "Common Sense" is to argue for the independence of the American colonies from British rule. He makes a passionate case for the importance of self-governance and the idea that it is natural for a people to rule themselves rather than be subjected to a distant monarch.
What did John Locke and Thomas Hobbes argue about?
John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both wrote about political philosophy, but they had different views on the role of government. Hobbes believed that a strong central authority was needed to maintain order and prevent chaos, while Locke argued for a more limited government that protected people's natural rights, such as life, liberty, and property.
Did john Locke and Thomas Hobbes argue that people have a set of natural rights and give some up to society?
yes
What did Thomas Hobbes argue?
Thomas Hobbes argued that human nature is inherently self-interested and driven by a desire for power. He believed that in the state of nature, without a governing authority, life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes advocated for a social contract whereby individuals relinquish some freedoms to a sovereign ruler in exchange for protection and stability.
Ideas on an argument to write an essay on Hobbes and Locke?
You could argue that while both Hobbes and Locke advocated for a social contract theory, their ideas on the role of government and individual rights differ significantly. Hobbes believed in a powerful, centralized government to maintain order, while Locke favored a limited government with a focus on protecting individual rights and property. Comparing and contrasting these two perspectives can highlight the fundamental differences between their philosophies on governance and human nature.
Would sociologist agree that government does not help families in need?
No.A sociologist would argue how far the government go to help people, or how effective their schemes are. The wouldn't say that they don't help families in need. Sociologists like to 'sit on the fence' and argue both sides. :)
How might people who supported parliament over the monach have argued against Hobbes view?
Supporters of Parliament over the monarchy could argue against Hobbes by emphasizing the importance of checks and balances within a government. They might also stress the value of individual rights and freedoms, which could be threatened by an all-powerful monarchy as Hobbes proposed. Additionally, they could point out that a government based on consent of the governed, as advocated by Parliament supporters, leads to a more stable and just society compared to a monarchy that relies on absolute power.
A government in power may argue that rights can be violated if what?
A government in power may argue that rights can be violated if
What did The Federalist argue about the constitution?
About Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson
Why was leviathan written?
Leviathan was written by Thomas Hobbes in 1651 to explore political philosophy and provide a theoretical framework for a strong central government that could maintain social order and prevent the "war of all against all" that he believed would exist in a state of nature. The book aimed to address the chaos and insecurity of the English Civil War and promote his idea of social contract theory.
Defenders of the electoral college argue that?
They argue that it maintains a federal system of government and representation.
How does government argue today?
cuz your mom is fat
What did the Mormons argue about with the US government?
We did not argue, but tried to make peace, there were many people who wanted to drive us out of where we lived.
