John Locke who is a British Philosopher and Baron de Motesquieu a French philosopher had similar ideas and thoughts on the formation of the government. However, each of them defines unique path, which lead to the same conclusion.
John Locke is mainly famous as the father of liberalism following his exclusive thoughts on natural rights as well as liberties. According to him, all people are equal and independent. He argues that all individuals have the right to protect their life, possessions, as well as liberty from theft, as well as destruction. Following the incidences of conflict that will always arise in a society, Locke proposed that people may develop a civil society.
According to Locke, people should establish a civil society that would be highly effective in resolving conflicts. There must be proper outline of the government to handle various duties. Locke argued that the power in civil government must be separated for accountability. In addition, he supports revolution if the government became reckless with the powers.
Baron de Motesquieu had similar views to some extent. He also believed that the government should stand for the separation of powers. According to him, there is exclusive need for separation between judicial power and the legislative executive. He argues that it will be a bit hard to deal with conflicts within the government if there is no proper marking of power boundaries between the government bodies in place. The separation of powers ensures accountability in governance.
Motesquieu’s argument was an exclusive influence to the government of France where feudalistic structures were defined. He concludes by saying that free governments have to rely on constitutional agreements to remain free. Therefore, he agrees with Locke that the rights of the people require protection.
Thomas Hobbes and David Hume are British Philosophers with different and unique points of view. Each of them supports his argument with criticism for the thoughts of the other. The two philosophers have different views on the behavior of people. Their argument is also unique on how people react to avoid certain problems in their life.
According to Thomas Hobbes, people will always pity others in distress, as they fear the same distress may strike them. According to Hobbes, people will always assist others in a bid that the same experience will not occur to them. In his argument, Hobbes quotes that people will always pity dolphins in gill nets since they could not wish for a similar catastrophe to follow them in the future. People will always fear troubles that may befall them in the future.
On the other hand, David Hume talks of the possession of the virtues of compassion and benevolence. He argues that possession of the two virtues is natural. Hume argues that compassion comes naturally for humans. Also, it is the thread that ties the society together. He further argues that humans do not only survive on self-love but also with love for others.
Hume believed that it was the nature of a human being to sympathize with others. He outlines that even the most selfish person will feel compassion for others. Hume was a soft Universalist who believed that human beings were naturally altruistic. He had exclusive thoughts on the sympathy that individuals possess. He further argues on how they can use it to define excellence in the society in terms of the proper relationship.
François Arouet (Voltaire) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are unique French Philosophers with variant arguments on specific issues. Voltaire comes up with unique arguments in his publication “Treatise on Tolerance” while Rousseau defines exclusive argument on the “social contrast” publication.
Voltaire was a student for the liberal and natural views of the English philosophers. He supported the liberty and the freedom that was there in the society. He defined the reliability of leadership through the existence of a free society. Voltaire supported a constitutional monarchy. He never believed in distrusted democracy where he pushed for the idiocy of the masses. He also describes people as too optimistic, intolerant of ideas, as well as foolish. According to him, the people must work to the society better. He never believed that the everything happens for the better in the society.
On the other hand, Rousseau supported direct democracy and did not have trust for distributed representative democracy. He argues, “any law that the people has not ratified in person, is void." Rousseau argues that people want power in their hands. According to him people are born good and free, and they should enjoy the freedom in governance. He further suggested that strong people imprison weaker individuals. In his societal point of view, he argued that if people lived alone on the island, the society would be free from imperfections. Therefore, the government is a major agent of the imperfection in the society. He supports individual thoughts in contrast of societal thoughts. According to him, people should possess the ability to define their views on certain issues. Independent and uncontrolled behavior would influence the actions for different people.