Authoritarianism In John Locke's Two Treatises

John Locke lived and wrote during a turbulent time in English history and political science. The great debate still raged between authoritarianism and constitutional government. The questions posed during the English Civil War stood with no definitive answer, and an answer would not become clear until 1689. King Charles II was attempting to reinstate Catholicism, and with it absolutism (Ashcraft 27-29). The Whigs opposed this change, while their counterparts, the Tories stood in favor of a powerful monarch. The crown was cracking down on dissenters, including John Locke’s close friend and patron, Anthony Earl Cooper, the First Earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury worked as an adviser to the king, even sitting beside the king for the signing

The work was written, it seems, in direct response to one of these more influential authoritarian defenders. The treatises were clearly not a response to the revolution, rather the treatises were written in response to an earlier work by Robert Filmer, Patriarcha (Ashcraft 86). Filmer was a strong defender of the rights of the crown on the grounds of a patriarchal political philosophy. He advocated for absolute power for the crown, in the same manner as a father is given absolute power within a family. Filmer’s argument may seem illogical to a modern reader, but it was logical to a contemporary and created numerous logical and associative hurdles over which any dissenter would have to overcome (Hampsher-Monk 76-78). It is obvious that much of what Locke writes is in response to Filmer and similar patriarchal theorists, as the First Treatise is a thorough and powerful argument against such a view (Locke 267). One of Locke’s key arguments against Filmer regards the preservation of one’s self as God’s will. God will’s that one lives a full and natural life, therefore it is not one’s own right to give up his life (Locke 289) (Hampsher-Monk 80). By submitting to absolutism, one gives the King the right to execute one’s self without committing a crime. This is a power

Locke was not even writing in a time when political debate centered on liberty. Rather, the debate of Locke’s time was between absolutism and constitutionalism, often tied to religion. As such, Locke’s work is not arguing for democracy, though it does lend itself well to democracy. Locke is also not arguing for the necessary liberty of the individual, though his argument can at times imply its necessity. Rather, Locke is simply arguing that it is man's natural right to preserve his own well-being and property, and that absolute monarchy violates this holy right. For Locke, all political power is derived from this right. Within the context of history, it is obvious that Locke was not arguing for sweeping broad rights, but rather for