Introduction Robert Filmer (1588 – 26 May 1653) and John Locke (August 29, 1632 – October 28, 1704) both wrote theory on government. They explored a myriad of topics ranging from the state of nature to the dissolution of a government. One particular concept that they both address is the relationship of the father of a family to the king of a state. When discussing this subject, both authors are similar in their argument structure, their idea of the role of the first father, and his fatherly obligation to care for his seed, but they differ on the natural rule, autonomy, and political power of the father. Filmer’s Argument Sir Robert Filmer was an English political theorist and in his greatest known work, Patriarcha, he argued that one could attain the greatest liberty in the world if they resided under a monarchy (Filmer, 4.1). The foundation of Filmer’s argument for a strong monarchy equated the family to the state and the head of the household to be the head of the state. Filmer finds this equation legitimate because Adam and his heirs were deemed rulers over all succeeding peoples by the ordination of God himself way back in the Garden of Eden. Thus by this, Adam and …show more content…
Locke believes that people are born free and ultimately argues for a government that has more than one head. He would in fact, go as far as to argue that subjects under an absolute government are enslaved. According to Locke, Adam has no such title of natural rule or endowment to be king by God, for a title in habit and not in action is equivalent to no title at all (Locke, 154.18). How could he be a King with no subjects or a father with no kids? It is highly unlikely that whilst God was punishing Adam and Eve for their transgressions in the Garden of Eden, that he was simultaneously bestowing Adam with the natural rule of being King of mankind, or anything of the sort (Locke,