John Locke Essay, Research Paper

John Locke (1632 -1704), an English philosopher, stated that civil insurrection is a wholly justifiable solution to a troubled society. His basic premise held that the actual horror, the suffering and pain endured by a people improperly ruled would be even worse than that suffered without or during the revolution. He held that revolution is an idea, not a war; a correction of matters and it is not the people who are revolting, but rather those in power.

John Locke argues that there are two ways in which a revolution can be justified. First, when a government creates law, it is expected that the laws benefit the society it is charged with governing. If these laws cease to be beneficial, revolution is in order. Second, behaviors that violate the trust a society places in its government are also grounds for a revolution. Corrupt officials are an example of this.

declaration of war when it betrays its own people. Laws made by the people and for the people are not meant to be broken by those who hold the power to enforce them.

happen right away. A society would continually have to be abused in order to be motivated to attack a Capitol Building and start by finishing off a Senator. Lock may be shocked to learn that there are those, however, who have wandered down to the nearest post office with a semi-automatic gun and have done just that. Locke perhaps never dreamed that people like Timothy McVeigh would actually exist, but a full-blown revolution is what Locke based his argument on. His thoughts were geared toward an actual outbreak of an entire people – which is much harder to put together than a Ryder Truck full of fertilizer.

Locke also argues that, psychologically speaking, a lot of abuse would take place before and outbreak of rebellion. Much abuse must be apparent against an entire people, and since this does not happen everyday, those in power must not need be planning the nearest escape route out of the country. Not every little error of rule will bring about an upheaval by its people. Not only would a revolution take a long time to plan, it would take just as long for a people to decide that a revolution is in order. Not only are there consequences for a government to endure should a revolution take place, but there are also consequences for the people as well, (see paragraph I regarding the horrors of war). So, in terms of a psychological response to the objection of a revolution, Locke points out that humans are hard to motivate in general and change is a big issue for anyone, especially a major change in their lives. A revolution would constitute just such a major change, present and future, so a people would be hard-pressed to have one in the first place.

Locke’s second response to the objection of a revolution is a philosophical one. Locke’s argument is that one must determine who is rebelling against who. A rebellion is an opposition to those in authority, and since the government works for the people and was put into power by the people, it is the people who are in authority. If the government is acting against the people for whom they are suppose to be working for, then it is the government who is guilty of rebellion. A government is not to act without the consent of a people and if they do, the people have to right to take power away. It is Locke’s view that it is the government who puts itself at war with the very same people who elected them as their protectors. A government cannot protect a people’s liberty, according to Locke, if it is trying to infringe upon their liberty at the same time. So, it is the government who is actually rebelling, not the people. The people, in the case of a revolution, are just trying to protect themselves and their liberties; trying to protect themselves from those who failed to do the job.

John Locke brings about strong arguments which justify a revolution. If a government is put in to place by the people and for the people, than the job of the government is to do just that – work for the people in protecting their lives, and their liberties. When a government continually fails to do so, the response of the people is to do away with what is not doing as it should. If the only way a people can get a government to listen is by bloodshed, then so be it. Although Locke firmly testifies that the abuse would have to be recurring for such an uprising to take place, history has shown that revolutions do occur, and people are capable of revolt. It takes a whole society to create and execute a revolution and the process is a slow one. It is this voice that was given to the people and has been used by the people to keep freedom theirs.

31c