Question

7. Imagine a correspondence between Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. First

letter from Hobbes to Locke in which Hobbes argues that absolute monarchy
ideal form of government. Then write a second letter from the perspective of
Locke in which he answers and refutes Hobbes's argument.
Even though both Hobbes and Locke lived during the 17th century and would
have been aware of the enlightened despots of the 18th century, be sure to me
how Hobbes and Locke might have felt about the possibility of these rulers. Us
specific historical evidence to support your claims. (15 points)

Answer 1

In a fictional correspondence, Hobbes defends absolute monarchy as a means to maintain order in a chaotic state of nature, whereas Locke counters with the argument for a government based on a social contract that protects the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, which are at risk under absolute monarchy.

Step-by-step explanation:

Imagined Correspondence between Hobbes and Locke on Government

Dear Mr. Locke,

It is with great certainty that I, Thomas Hobbes, maintain the position that an absolute monarchy is the most superior and efficacious form of governance. The state of nature, as I have postulated, is one of chaos and perpetual fear, in which 'every man is against every man.' Without a powerful sovereign to instill order and ensure the collective safety of the populace, our lives would fall into disarray, and the progress of civilization would surely cease.

Sincerely, Thomas Hobbes

Dear Mr. Hobbes,

Your vision of absolutism, for me, John Locke, is quite disagreeable. I argue instead that the ideal government is founded upon a social contract and the principle of representative governance. As I have articulated in my Second Treatise of Government, the purpose of government is to secure the natural rights of life, liberty, and property, which preexist the establishment of any government. Human beings enter into a society to ensure the impartial protection of these rights, which an absolute monarchy could easily infringe upon.

Best regards, John Locke