The Enlightenment How have the ideas of the Enlightenment influenced modern

government? Introduction

During the late 1600s, a new outlook put great emphasis on reason as the key to human

progress. This period of new thinking among many educated Europeans is called

the Enlightenment, and by the 1700s, it had become widespread throughout Europe.

Enlightenment thinkers were inspired by the example of scientists, such as Galileo, Bacon, and

Newton. Scientists used observation and logic to understand the physical world, and their methods

rapidly overturned old beliefs. Now, believing a new age of reason was dawning, thinkers wanted to

take a similar approach to the problems of human life and forget the teachings of the past. In this new

age, governments and social institutions would be based on rational understanding, not on errors and

superstitions of earlier times.

A Frenchman, Bernard de Fontenelle, expressed this optimistic faith in reason and progress. In

1702, he wrote that the new century “will become more enlightened day by day, so that all previous

centuries will be lost in darkness by comparison.”

In France, philosophes (philosophers) championed these new ideas. These thinkers often gathered

in private homes for informal meetings, called salons, which were often organized by women. There

they exchanged and debated ideas and helped shape and spread the ideas of the Enlightenment.

In this lesson, you will learn about the roots of the Enlightenment. You will meet five

philosophers whose ideas greatly influenced the Enlightenment and see how their works led to new

ideas about government and individual rights. Finally, you will meet several women who played

important roles in the Enlightenment.

Social Studies

Vocabulary

bill of rights

constitutional monarchy

despotism

Enlightenment

natural rights

religious tolerance

social contract

separation of powers

1. The Roots of the Enlightenment

Enlightenment thinkers wanted to examine human life in the light of reason. Rational

understanding, they felt, would lead to great progress in government and society.

These thinkers believed they were making a major break with the past. Like everyone, however,

they were influenced by what had come before them. In this section, we will first examine the roots

of the Enlightenment and then consider ways in which the new ideas of the Enlightenment clashed

with old beliefs.

The Scientific Revolution Enlightenment thinking grew out of the Scientific Revolution. In science,

observation and reason were revealing natural laws that applied throughout the physical world. The

thinkers of the Enlightenment wanted to apply this approach to human life and experience. They

asked questions such as: Are there natural laws that tell us how to live? How well do our current

institutions follow natural laws? Do natural laws give all people certain rights? What is the best form

of government?

Philosophers did not always agree about the answers to these questions, but they all thought

about these questions in a similar way. Like scientists, they placed their trust in reason and

observation as the best sources of understanding and progress.

The Renaissance and the Reformation The Enlightenment also had roots in the Renaissance and

the Reformation. The humanists of the Renaissance questioned accepted beliefs and celebrated the

dignity and worth of the individual. During the Reformation, Protestants rebelled against the Catholic

Church by putting individual conscience ahead of religious tradition and authority. Enlightenment

thinkers went even further in rejecting authority and upholding the freedom of individuals to think

for themselves.

Classical and Christian Influences Like the humanists of the Renaissance, many Enlightenment

thinkers were inspired by classical culture. Trust in reason, for example, goes all the way back to the

ancient Greeks, as does the idea that people should have a voice in their government. Philosophers

who argued for this idea could point to the democracy of ancient Athens or to the republic of ancient

Rome.

Christian ideas also influenced Enlightenment thinking. Enlightenment philosophers preferred

rational thought to faith based on the Bible, but most of them continued to believe in God. They saw

the laws of nature as the work of an intelligent Creator and human progress as a sign of God's

goodness. Often, their approach to moral problems reflected Christian values, such as respect for

others and for a moral law.

New Ideas Versus Old Beliefs The thinkers of the Enlightenment prized reason over

authority; questioned the foundations of religion, morality, and government; and believed that

everything must be re-examined in the light of reason. This outlook led to many clashes with

accepted beliefs and the ruling powers who upheld them.

Christian faith, for example, was based largely on trust in the Bible as God's word. However,

Enlightenment thinkers believed that humans were perfectly capable of discovering truth for

themselves. Some even questioned the existence of God, while others sought a “natural religion”

based on reason. These thinkers believed the order in the universe was proof enough of an intelligent

Creator and that there was no need to base belief in God on revelations in holy books. Similarly, they

maintained that ideas about right and wrong should be based on rational insight, not on the teachings

of religious authorities.

Enlightenment thinkers also criticized accepted ideas about government. Some questioned the

long-held belief that God gave monarchs the right to rule, and many insisted that governments must

respect individual rights. Toward the end of the 18th century, these ideas played a major role in

revolutions in both the American colonies and France.

2. Thomas Hobbes: Absolute Rule by Kings

Thomas Hobbes was born in England in 1588. He wrote about many subjects,

including politics and government, and tried to give a rational basis for absolute, or

unlimited, rule by kings.

The son of a clergyman, Hobbes studied at Oxford University. As an adult, he

traveled to other European countries, where he met many writers, scientists, and

philosophers. In addition to studying history and government, Hobbes studied

mathematics and science, which inspired him to take a scientific approach to

problems of human society.

Hobbes's thinking about society was greatly influenced by events in England in the

mid-1600s. King Charles I was struggling for power with Parliament, England's

lawmaking body, and civil war erupted between the monarch's supporters and

Parliament in 1642. Hobbes sided with the king.

In 1649, the king was beheaded. For the next several years, England was ruled by

Parliament's House of Commons, but disorder and discontent continued. Finally, in

1660, the monarchy was restored.

The chaos of these years had a powerful impact on Hobbes. What, he asked, is the basis of social

order? To answer this question, he tried to reason from his observations of human nature.

In Hobbes's view, human beings were naturally cruel, selfish, and greedy. In 1651, he published a book

called Leviathan, in which he wrote that people are driven by a restless desire for power. Without laws or

other social controls, people would always be in conflict, and in such a “state of nature,” life would be

“nasty, brutish and short.”

Governments, Hobbes believed, were created to protect people from their own selfishness. Because

people were selfish by nature, they could not be trusted to make decisions that were good for society as a

whole. Only a government that has a ruler with absolute authority could maintain an orderly society.

Later Enlightenment thinkers came to quite different conclusions about human nature and the best form of

government. Hobbes was important, however, because he was one of the first thinkers to apply the tools

of the Scientific Revolution to problems of politics. During the Enlightenment and the years that

followed, many European countries moved away from absolute monarchy.

3. John Locke: Natural Rights

John Locke was born in England in 1632. His thinking about

government and people's rights had a major impact on the

Enlightenment.

Whereas Thomas Hobbes had argued that kings should have

absolute power, Locke favored constitutional monarchy. In

this type of government, a basic set of laws limits the ruler's

power.

Locke's ideas reflected a tradition of limitations on the

English monarchy dating back to 1215, when English nobles

forced King John to sign Magna Carta, or the “Great

Charter.” Magna Carta established the idea that even

monarchs had to obey English laws and respect certain

individual rights.

Over time, Parliament became the main check on the monarch's power. During the civil war of the 1640s,

Locke's father fought on the side of Parliament. The young Locke was greatly influenced by his father's

beliefs.

In the 1680s, another crisis developed. The new king, James II, was Catholic. James's enemies in

Protestant England feared that he wanted to put Catholics in power and forced him to flee the country in

1688.

In 1689, Parliament gave the crown to James's Protestant daughter Mary and her husband,

William. Parliament also passed a bill of rights, which strengthened the power of Parliament as the

representative of the people. For example, the English Bill of Rights forbade the monarch from keeping a

standing army in peacetime or levying taxes without Parliament's consent. It also listed individual rights,

including protection in court cases from excessive fines and “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Locke approved of these changes in England. In 1690, he published Two Treatises of Government, in

which he offered a theory of government that justified Parliament's actions.

Locke denied the divine right of monarchs to rule and argued that the true basis of government was

a social contract, or agreement, among free people. Under this agreement, the purpose of government

was to protect people's natural rights, including the right to life, liberty, and property. The people are the

sole source of power and must agree to give power to the government to rule on their behalf. Therefore,

according to Locke's social contract, a government's authority was based on the consent of the

governed. If the government failed to respect people's rights, it broke the contract and could be

overthrown.

Locke's view of government had a wide influence. In 1776, his ideas would be echoed in the American

Declaration of Independence.

4. Montesquieu: Separation of Powers

Charles-Louis de Secondat was born in France in 1689. He is better known by his

title, the Baron de Montesquieu (MON-tuh-skyoo).

In his youth, Montesquieu attended a Catholic school. Later he became a

lawyer. When his uncle died in 1716, Montesquieu inherited the title of baron

along with his uncle's fortune, and he also became president of the local parliament.

In 1721, Montesquieu achieved fame as a writer with a book calledPersian Letters,

which described French society as seen by fictional travelers from Persia. It used humor to criticize

French institutions, including the king's court and the Catholic Church. It quickly became very popular,

and Montesquieu became an admired guest in the salons of Paris.

Montesquieu's most famous book was The Spirit of Laws, published in 1748. In this book, he described

his theory of how governments should be organized.

Like John Locke, Montesquieu was concerned with how to protect political liberty. The best way to do

this, he argued, was to divide power among three branches of government. In such a system, the

legislative branch made the laws, the executive branch enforced the laws, and the judicial branch

interpreted the laws. This concept, which Montesquieu called the separation of powers, would ensure

that no one branch would become too powerful.

Montesquieu's theory reflected his admiration for the English government. In England, Parliament made

the laws, the monarch enforced them, and courts interpreted them. Each branch of government checked,

or limited, the power of the others. When powers were not separated in this way, Montesquieu warned,

liberty was soon lost. Too much power in the hands of any one person is called despotism.

Montesquieu's ideas had a powerful impact on later thinkers, including the men who wrote the U.S.

Constitution. They made the separation of powers a key part of the U.S. system of government.

5. Voltaire: Religious Tolerance and Free Speech

Francois-Marie Arouet was born in France in 1694. Under the pen name Voltaire, he became one of the

most celebrated writers of the Enlightenment.

As a young man, Voltaire attended a Catholic college in Paris before settling on a career in literature. He

soon earned fame as a writer and as a witty participant in Paris salons.

Voltaire believed passionately in reforming society in the name of justice and human happiness. He

warned against what he saw as superstition, error, and oppression. With biting humor, he

attacked the French court and the power of the Catholic clergy.

Like Montesquieu, Voltaire admired England's constitutional monarchy and separation of powers. In his

view, the English were governed by law, not by the arbitrary wishes of a single ruler. To be governed by

law, he said, was “man's most cherished right.”

Voltaire was especially concerned with freedom of thought and expression. He championed religious

tolerance, or allowing people to practice religion in their own ways. Voltaire thought religious conflict

was one of the main sources of evil in the world. He argued that no single religion possessed all the truth

but instead held that there was a core of truth in all religions. This core was the “natural religion” that

reason made available to everyone.

Voltaire also spoke out for the right of free speech. Once he wrote a letter to a man whose views he

strongly opposed and said that he would give his life so that his opponent could continue to write. A later

writer expressed Voltaire's feeling in the words, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the

death your right to say it.”

Throughout his life, Voltaire criticized intolerance and oppression wherever he saw them. His

outspokenness often led to conflicts with authorities, causing him to spend time in prison twice and to flee

to another city or country on several occasions.

Voltaire's ideas about religious tolerance and free speech greatly influenced colonial American political

thinkers, such as Thomas Jefferson. They demanded that freedom of religion and free speech be included

in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

6. Cesare Beccaria: The Rights of the Accused

Cesare Beccaria (beck-kah-REE-ah) was born in Milan, Italy, in 1738. He was a pioneer

in the field of criminology and his work stressed the rights of accused people to fair

treatment.

The son of an aristocrat, Beccaria attended a Catholic school as a boy and received a

degree in law from the University of Pavia in 1758. When he finished his studies, he

returned to Milan, where he was soon caught up in the intellectual excitement of the

Enlightenment.

In 1763, Beccaria began a study of the justice system. He was upset by the harsh practices that were

common in his day. Torture was often used to force confessions from accused persons or statements from

witnesses to a crime. People might have their thumbs crushed in a device called a thumbscrew or have

their bodies stretched on a device called a rack until their joints were pulled apart.

Beccaria objected to other practices, as well. It was not unusual for trials to be held in secret or for judges

to be corrupt. People found guilty of crimes were frequently sentenced to death.

Beccaria attacked these practices in a famous book called On Crimes and Punishments. He argued that

laws exist to preserve security and order and that punishments should be designed to serve this

purpose. Like other people, criminals made rational decisions. To stop people from committing crimes,

punishment did not have to be brutal. It only had to be certain and severe enough to outweigh the crime's

potential benefits.

Beccaria also argued for other specific rights, including the right to a fair and speedy trial for persons

accused of a crime and an end to the use of torture. In addition, he felt that it was wrong to punish some

people more harshly than others for the same crime and that a punishment should fit the seriousness of the

crime. He believed that capital punishment—putting someone to death—should be ended completely.

Beccaria's book encouraged the scientific study of crime. His ideas about rights and punishment

influenced reform movements throughout Europe. In the United States, many laws concerning crime and

punishment reflect his ideas.

7. The Impact of the Enlightenment on Government

Enlightenment thinkers proposed new ideas about human

nature and the best forms of government. Let's take a look at

the influence of these ideas in Europe and America.

Enlightened Rule A few European absolute monarchs tried

to apply Enlightenment ideas in the 1700s. These rulers,

including Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great

of Russia, and Joseph II of Austria, became known as

“enlightened despots” or “benevolent

despots.” Benevolent means “to be kind; to do good for others.”

Enlightened monarchs founded universities and scientific societies and introduced reforms, such as

greater religious tolerance and an end to torture and capital punishment. However, these rulers pushed

change only so far. They wanted to maintain their own power and avoid angering the noble classes,

whose support they needed.

The American and French Revolutions The ideas of the Enlightenment greatly influenced leaders of the

American Revolution. Many people in the American colonies shared the traditions of Magna Carta and

the English Bill of Rights, as John Locke had. When the colonists rebelled in 1775, they pointed to the

abuse of their rights by the English king. The Declaration of Independence echoed Locke's ideas on

natural rights and the social contract.

The U.S. Constitution also contains ideas from the Enlightenment. The Constitution includes

Montesquieu's idea of separation of powers. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of religion and

speech championed by Voltaire, as well as some of the rights promoted by Beccaria, such as the right to a

speedy trial.

In 1789, a revolution broke out in France, and the absolute monarchy there was overthrown. France's

National Assembly produced the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a document that

proclaimed liberty and equality. It upheld the rights to own property and to resist oppression and

guaranteed freedom of speech and religion. All these ideas grew out of the Enlightenment.

8. Women of the Enlightenment

The women of the 1700s did not enjoy the same rights or

status as men, and yet a number of women played an

important role in the Enlightenment. Some helped spread

Enlightenment thinking through their published writing or by

hosting salons. Others extended ideas about rights and equality

to women.

Madame Geoffrin One of the most prominent sponsors of

salons was Madame Marie Thérèse Rodet Geoffrin (jhef-

FRANH). Beginning in the mid-1700s, the brightest minds in

Europe met in her home for lively talks about the latest

ideas. Madame Geoffrin also gave financial support to the

Encyclopedists, a group of men who put together the first

encyclopedia.

At Madame Geoffrin's salons, princes and politicians mingled with artists, writers, and

philosophers. Geoffrin led these gatherings with a firm hand. She reserved Mondays for artists and

Wednesdays for writers and philosophers.

Abigail Adams Abigail Adams firmly supported the American colonies' struggle for independence from

England. She was married to John Adams, a leader of the American Revolution and the second U.S.

president. During the war, she reminded John not to forget women's rights in the new American

government. She wrote, “If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to

foment [start] a Rebellion.” Women, she went on, “will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which

we have no voice.” Abigail also spoke out for a woman's right to education.

Olympe de Gouges French Olympe de Gouges was the daughter of a butcher. Despite having little

education, she became an important writer and social reformer. In 1791, she published the Declaration of

the Rights of Woman and of the Female Citizen, her answer to the National Assembly's Declaration of the

Rights of Man and of the Citizen. De Gouges argued for women's equality in every aspect of public and

private life. She believed that women should have the right to vote, hold office, own property, and serve

in the military and that they should have equal power with men in family life and in the church.

Mary Wollstonecraft English writer Mary Wollstonecraft was another early

leader in the struggle to gain equal rights for women. In an essay published in

1792, she argued that women deserve the same rights and opportunities as

men. “Let woman share the rights,” she wrote, “and she will emulate [imitate] the

virtues of men, for she must grow more perfect when emancipated [freed].”

Wollstonecraft believed that education was the key to gaining equality and

freedom. She called for reforms to give women the same education as men. In the 19th century, her ideas

about equality for women inspired early leaders of the women's rights movement in the United States.

Lesson Summary

In this lesson, you learned about the Enlightenment, a new way of thinking that began in Europe in

the late 1600s and became widespread in the 1700s.

The Roots of the Enlightenment The Enlightenment grew out of the Renaissance and the Scientific

Revolution. Much Enlightenment thinking challenged accepted beliefs. Enlightenment philosophers

wanted to apply the ideas and methods of the Scientific Revolution to problems of government and

society.

Enlightenment Thinkers Thomas Hobbes used logic and his observations to reach conclusions about

government. John Locke championed the rights to life, liberty, and property. Montesquieu argued for a

separation of powers in government. Voltaire championed religious tolerance and free speech. Cesare

Beccaria called for reform in criminal law to protect the rights of the accused.

The Impact of the Enlightenment on Government Modern views of government owe a great deal to

Enlightenment thinkers. The Enlightenment influenced monarchs in Europe, especially “enlightened

despots,” and greatly affected revolutions in the American colonies and France.

Women of the Enlightenment Several women, such as Abigail Adams, Olympe de Gouges, and Mary

Wollstonecraft, worked to extend ideas of liberty and equality to women.

Investigating Primary Sources

How Did the Enlightenment Influence

the Declaration of Independence?

During the Enlightenment, many educated Europeans emphasized reason to understand how

humans can best live together. This new way of thinking spread to Britain's American colonies. You

will read four primary sources that reflect this thinking and then write an argument to explain how

the Enlightenment influenced the Declaration of Independence in America.

In the late 1600s, the English philosopher John Locke spent years of his life thinking and writing about

the role of government and individuals in a peaceful and successful society. One of Locke's most famous

works of political philosophy was called Two Treatises of Government.

At the time that Locke wrote this work, England's government leaders were arguing about the power of

their monarch and the strength of citizen representation within the Parliament. In this excerpt from Two

Treatises of Government, what rights does Locke suggest mankind naturally has? According to this text,

why is it important to understand natural rights? Why would a monarch likely not support these ideas?

About 60 years after Locke wrote his Two Treatises of Government, a Frenchman known as the Baron de

Montesquieu wrote a famous book about how governments should be organized. Montesquieu's The

Spirit of Laws was published in 1748 and conveyed his beliefs about limiting political power for any one

individual or group in the government. The book details his concept of separation of powers, which

became the basis of the three branches of government in the United States. In many European cities, the

book received praise, especially by Enlightenment thinkers. In Rome, however, it was placed on a list of

“forbidden books” because some felt it threatened the faith or morals of Roman Catholic people.

This excerpt from The Spirit of Laws explains Montesquieu's ideas about how laws should be

written. How does Montesquieu suggest laws should be worded? Why do you think Montesquieu advises

against including too many details in laws? What connections might there be between these ideas and the

Declaration of Independence?

While Montesquieu wrote about limiting government power and protecting individual liberty, an Italian

philosopher, Cesare Beccaria, was writing about power and rights in the criminal justice system.Beccaria

was deeply concerned about how punishments for crime should be used for the good of the society. In

1764, Beccaria wrote An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, which argued for rights of accused

individuals. Many authorities consider this work to be the first and most important systematic statement

of principles about the treatment of people accused of crimes.

According to this excerpt from Beccaria's essay, when is punishment unacceptable? Based on this

excerpt, what is the purpose of a punishment? What are Beccaria's suggestions about reducing crime and

punishments? What does this excerpt have in common with the other two primary sources you read?

The philosophies of the Enlightenment thinkers spread to North America. By 1775, many colonists were

dissatisfied with the way Britain's king was treating them. Colonial leaders agreed with John Locke and

others about the natural rights of individuals, such as life and liberty.

With these ideas in mind, Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, which freed the 13

colonies from Britain's rule and created the United States of America. Here is the beginning section of the

Declaration. How has Jefferson constructed the document as a logical argument for separation from

Britain?

How are the concepts of the first three primary sources visible in the Declaration of

Independence? Use your findings to write a claim to explain how Enlightenment thinkers

influenced this document.

The Influence of the Magna Carta

Earlier, you learned how the barons and clergy of England defied King John. They used a variety of

tactics to try to force change. They withheld scutage, their contributions to the costs of wars when they

did not send knights. They took over the city of London. Some of them withdrew their allegiance from

the king. At the suggestion of Archbishop Langton, they based their demands on an earlier document, the

Coronation Charter or Charter of Liberties of Henry I. Through this combination of approaches, they

forced King John to change unfair practices. They got him to promise that those who ruled after him

would abide by the changes. These changes were recorded in the document called the Magna Carta in

1215.

Just as the Charter of Liberties served as the inspiration for the Magna Carta, the Magna Carta partly

inspired later documents that dealt with fair government. Let's look at three of them:

• The English Bill of Rights (England, 1689)

• The Declaration of Independence (British Colonies in America, 1776)

• The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (France, 1789)

The Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights

You may remember that James II, a Catholic ruler, was driven out of England by Protestant enemies in

1688. Parliament took charge of the country. After consideration, they offered the crown to James II's

daughter, Mary, and her husband, William of Orange, seen in the painting (1647). Along with the offer

came the English Bill of Rights, which they were required to agree to. They became England's rulers in

1689.

There are several key differences between the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. First, the

Magna Carta is written in first person by King John, while the English Bill of Rights is written by

Parliament. The Magna Carta is a document of reconciliation, bringing the sides together in peace, while

the English Bill of Rights is a document of complaints and responses. It first lists the offenses of King

James II and then tells how things ought to be.

Also, the government had further developed since the time of the Magna Carta. King John had 25 barons

as advisers, but he did not have a Parliament, for example. And the political situation was quite

different. But there are three fundamental similarities. Both documents recognize and aim to correct

injustice. Both prohibit unjust fines. And both prohibit punishment before/without a trial. Let's look at the

wording of the last two to see how they are related.

Fines Magna Carta 20: “A freeman shall not be amerced [fined] for a slight offense, except in accordance

with the degree of the offense; and for a grave offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity

of the offense. . . . Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in

accordance with the degree of the offense.”

Fines English Bill of Rights: “That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted . . .”

No Punishment Without Trial Magna Carta 39: “No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised

[deprived of his possessions] or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him,

except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

No Punishment Without Trial English Bill of Rights: “That all grants and promises of fines and

forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.”

In both cases, fundamental elements of the legal system are reaffirmed. Punishments should fit the crime

and be imposed in a lawful way.

The Magna Carta and the Declaration of Independence

When the colonists decided to separate from England, they followed the model of the barons and clergy in

the time of King John by creating a document to state their claims of injustice. Though it speaks of natural

rights—an Enlightenment idea that was not discussed in the thirteenth century—it has some important

commonalities.

Both documents include declarations of equality. And the signers of the Declaration of Independence saw

themselves as being in a similar situation to the barons and clergy under King John's rule, reacting to

longstanding injustice.

Equality Magna Carta 60: “Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of

which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed by all

of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.”

Equality Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created

equal . . .”

The Right to Act Against an Unfair Monarch Magna Carta 61: “. . . we give and grant to them the

underwritten security, namely, that the barons choose five and twenty barons of the kingdom,

whomsoever they will, who shall be bound with all their might, to observe and hold, and cause to be

observed, the peace and liberties we have granted and confirmed to them by this our present Charter, so

that if we, or our justiciar, or our bailiffs or any one of our officers, shall in anything be at fault towards

anyone, or shall have broken any one of the articles of this peace or of this security, and the offense be

notified to four barons of the foresaid five and twenty, the said four barons shall repair to us (or our

justiciar, if we are out of the realm) and, laying the transgression before us, petition to have that

transgression redressed without delay. And if we shall not have corrected the transgression (or, in the

event of our being out of the realm, if our justiciar shall not have corrected it) within forty days,

reckoning from the time it has been intimated to us (or to our justiciar, if we should be out of the realm),

the four barons aforesaid shall refer that matter to the rest of the five and twenty barons, and those five

and twenty barons shall, together with the community of the whole realm, distrain and distress us in all

possible ways, namely, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, and in any other way they can, until

redress has been obtained as they deem fit, saving harmless our own person, and the persons of our queen

and children; and when redress has been obtained, they shall resume their old relations towards us.”

The Right to Act Against an Unfair Monarch Declaration of Independence “. . . that, to secure these

rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes

destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new

government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them

shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that

governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all

experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right

themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and

usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute

despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for

their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity

which constrains them to alter their former systems of government.”

The Magna Carta gives the people specific rights to act against an unjust monarch. Although it is not

contained in the document, many of the barons renounced their allegiance to King John and only took

their oaths again after he had signed the Magna Carta. That is, they threw off their unjust government as

the signers of the Declaration of Independence would do.

The Massachusetts State Seal of 1775 shows the importance the colonists attached to the Magna Carta

and their belief that they were following in the footsteps of the barons and clergy who opposed King

John. It shows a colonist with a sword in one hand and a copy of the Magna Carta in the other. The motto

in Latin means, “By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty.”

The Magna Carta and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is a document of the French Revolution. It is

different from both the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights in addressing all citizens as its

audience. It aims to inform them of their rights and duties. The similarities between the French

Declaration and the Magna Carta are in the areas of equality, appropriate punishments imposed under the

law, and protection of property.

Equality Magna Carta 60: “Moreover, all these aforesaid customs and liberties, the observances of

which we have granted in our kingdom as far as pertains to us towards our men, shall be observed by all

of our kingdom, as well clergy as laymen, as far as pertains to them towards their men.”

Equality Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen 1: “Men are born and remain free and equal

in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.”

Appropriate Punishments Imposed Under the Law Magna Carta 20 and 39: “A freeman shall not be

amerced [fined] for a slight offense, except in accordance with the degree of the offense; and for a grave

offense he shall be amerced in accordance with the gravity of the

offense. . . . Earls and barons shall not be amerced except through their peers, and only in accordance with

the degree of the offense.”

“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised [deprived of his possessions] or in any way

destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by

the law of the land.”

Appropriate Punishments Imposed Under the Law Declaration of the Right of Man and of the

Citizen 7 and 8: “No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to

the forms prescribed by law. . . .”

“The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one

shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the

commission of the offense.”

Protection of Property Magna Carta 30 and 31: “No sheriff or bailiff of ours, or other person, shall take

the horses or carts of any freeman for transport duty, against the will of the said freeman.”

“Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take, for our castles or for any other work of ours, wood which is not

ours, against the will of the owner of that wood.”

Protection of Property Declaration of the Right of Man and of the Citizen 17. “Since property is an

inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally

determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously

and equitably indemnified.”

The Social Contract as Conceived by Locke and Rousseau

The social contract theories of philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques

Rousseau differed on important points. We're going to look at how Locke (1632–1704) and Rousseau

(1712–1778) frame their ideas about the social contract.

Since they use the masculine pronoun throughout, we will do the same for consistency.

Overview

Locke and Rousseau both include the following seven features in their descriptions of the social contract,

providing the context in which it arises and how it comes into being, a description of what it is and does,

and how it may be ended.

A description of:

• an original state of life called the “State of Nature,” with particular possibilities and limitations

• how the State of Nature can become a State of War

• what leads people to personally commit to a social contract

• what the social contract is and what the contract creates

• what form(s) of government are compatible with the social contract

• the rights and obligations of those who commit to the social contract

• under what circumstances the social contract can legitimately be dissolved

Locke's Social Contract

Locke set out his theory in The Second Treatise on Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original,

Extent, and End of Civil Government.

State of Nature Locke believes that people begin in the State of Nature. He begins here because “to

understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider what state all men are

naturally in.” People in the State of Nature have “perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of

their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking

leave or depending upon the will of any other man” (II. 4). Everyone is equal, with no one having control

over anyone else.

The Law of Nature is identified with reason. By this law, people are forbidden to harm themselves or

others. “. . . Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or

possessions” (II.6). But Locke believes that not everybody will follow the law, and he explains that for

this reason, people have the right in the State of Nature to punish wrongdoing. “And that all men may be

restrained from invading others' rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the Law of Nature be

observed . . . the execution of the law of nature is in that state put into every man's hands, whereby

everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.”

The Problem of Injustice Locke summarizes the role of people in preserving the Law of Nature by

saying, “In the State of Nature, everyone has executive power of the Law of Nature” (II.13), meaning

every individual enforces the law. But, as he points out, this means that people will be the judge in their

own case, when they have been injured. In such cases, they are unlikely to be fair, and “confusion and

disorder will follow” (II. 13). Locke proposes that civil government is the answer. But not every form of

government will solve the problems. Locke points out that the same situation—of a man judging his own

case and acting without controls—happens when there is an absolute monarch. Because of this, an

absolute monarchy is not an improvement over the injustice in the State of Nature.

The State of War Locke, probably in response to Thomas Hobbes, is careful to distinguish the State of

Nature from the State of War, which arises when someone steals from another or otherwise tries to get

another person into his power. “And here we have the plain difference between the State of Nature, and

the State of War, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, good

will, mutual assistance, and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction

are one from another” (III. 19).

Committing to the Social Contract Locke identifies two reasons to enter into the Social Contract. One is

to avoid the State of War. “To avoid this State of War (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven , and

. . . no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reason of Men's putting themselves into

society and quitting the State of Nature” (III. 21). The second reason men enter into the Social Contract is

to protect their property. Locke summarizes like this. “If man in the State of Nature be so free, as has

been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions equal to the greatest and subject to

nobody, why will he part with his Freedom? Why will he give up this empire and subject himself to the

dominion and control of any other power? To which ‘tis obvious to answer, that though in the State of

Nature, he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain and constantly exposed to the

invasion of others. For all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict

observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very

unsecure. This makes him willing to quit this Condition, which however free, is full of fears and continual

dangers” (IX. 123).

What the Social Contract Is and What It Creates Since men desire justice and protection for their

property, they enter into a social contract and create a political or civil society, says Locke. “Wherever

therefore any number of men are so united into one society as to quite everyone his executive power of

the Law of Nature and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society. And this

is done wherever any number of men in the State of Nature enter into society to make one people, one

body politic under one supreme government, or else when anyone joins himself to and incorporates with

an government already made. For hereby he authorizes the . . . legislative [body] thereof to make laws for

him as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof, his own assistance . . . is

due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a commonwealth, by setting up a judge on

earth, with authority to determine all the controversies and redress the injuries that may happen to any

member of the commonwealth; which judge is the legislative or magistrates appointed by it. And

wherever there are any number of men, however associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal

to, there they are still in the State of Nature” (VII. 89).

The Forms of Government Compatible with the Social Contract Locke states that democracy,

oligarch (government of the few), monarchy, hereditary monarchy, and elective monarchy, as well as

mixed forms of government are all possible as the majority of the commonwealth think good (X. 132).

Obligations of the Makers of the Social Contract After choosing the form of government and

establishing a legislature, the members of the commonwealth have an obligation to pay their share to

maintain it. However, the taxes must be levied with the consent of the majority (XI. 140).

Dissolving the Social Contract Locke says that a government may legitimately be dissolved when the

government fails to fulfill its proper functions with respect to the people who empowered it. What

happens then? Locke says, “. . . when the government is dissolved, the people are at liberty to provide for

themselves, by erecting a new legislative [body], differing from the other by the change of persons or

form or both, as they shall find it most for their safety and good” (XIX. 220). He even finds revolution

and rebellion to be an acceptable response to a government that abuses the people, lies to them, and

makes great mistakes in administering the commonwealth (XIX 225, 226).

Rousseau's Social Contract

Rousseau set out his theory in two works: What Is the Origin of Inequality Among Men, and Is It

Authorized by Natural Law? (abbreviated OI) and The Social Contract or Principles of Political

Right (abbreviated SC).

State of Nature Rousseau characterizes the State of Nature as a state of uniformity and goodness in

which people have a natural equality. He says that “nothing is more gentle than man in his primitive

state” ((OI; The First Part).Initial societies prior to the social contract do not alter these three

characteristics, although they increase associations between people. When these early societies form,

“everything now begins to change its aspect. Men, who have up to now been roving in the woods, by

taking to a more settled manner of life, come gradually together, form separate bodies, and at length in

every country arises a distinct nation, united in character and manners, not by regulations or laws, but by

uniformity of life and food and the common influence of climate.” (OI; The First Part).

As society develops and the interactions of people increase, they gradually lose their uniformity. “If we

compare the prodigious [great] diversity which obtains in the education and manner of life of the various

orders of men in the state of society, with the uniformity and simplicity of animal and savage life, in

which everyone lives on the same kind of food and in exactly the same manner, and does exactly the same

things, it is easy to conceive how much less the difference between man and man must be in a state of

nature than in a state of society, and how greatly the natural inequality of mankind must be increased by

the inequalities of social institutions (OI; The First Part).

They also lose their equality. “Whoever sang or danced best, whoever was the handsomest, the strongest,

the most dexterous, or the most eloquent, came to be of most consideration; and this was the first step

towards inequality” (OI; The First Part).

The Problem of Injustice Rousseau ties the appearance eof injustice to the appearance of morality. He

says, “Morality began to appear in human actions, and everyone, before the institution of law, was the

only judge and avenger of the injuries done him, so that the goodness which was suitable in the pure state

of nature was no longer proper in the newborn state of society. Punishments had to be made more severe,

as opportunities of offending became more frequent, and the dread of vengeance had to take the place of

the rigour of the law” (OI; The First Part).

The State of War With the growth in property, society disintegrates. “Thus, as the most powerful or the

most miserable considered their might or misery as a kind of right to the possessions of others, equivalent,

in their opinion, to that of property, the destruction of equality was attended by the most terrible

disorders. Usurpations by the rich, robbery by the poor, and the unbridled passions of both, suppressed

the cries of natural compassion and the still feeble voice of justice, and filled men with avarice, ambition,

and vice. . . . There arose perpetual conflicts, which never ended but in battles and bloodshed. The new-

born state of society thus gave rise to a horrible state of war . . . (OI; The First Part).

Committing to the Social Contract In beginning his book, The Social Contract, Rousseau refers back to

the state of war that he described in his essay on the origins of inequality. It is this state he is referring to

when he wrote the first line, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (SC; Book 1; Chapter

1). He characterizes the problem by saying, “‘The problem is to find a form of association which will

defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which

each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.' This is

the fundamental problem of which the social contract provides the solution” (SC; Book 1; Chapter 6).

What the Social Contract Is and What It Creates Rousseau summarizes the essential elements of the

social contract (he also called it “social compact”) as follows: “Each of us puts his person and all his

power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we

receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole” (SC; Book 1; Chapter 6). He refers to the body

politic as the “Sovereign.”

The social contract creates important differences in the lives of those who participate in it. “The passage

from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting

justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly

lacked. . . . Although in this state, he deprives himself of some advantages which he got from nature, he

gains in return others so great, his faculties are so stimulated and developed, his ideas so extended, his

feelings so ennobled, and his whole soul so uplifted, that, did not the abuses of this new condition often

degrade him below that which he left, he would be bound to bless continually the happy moment which

took him from it forever, and, instead of a stupid and unimaginative animal, made him an intelligent being

and a man” (SC; Book 1; Chapter 8).

One key trade-off in exchanging one state for another has to do with it substitutes a new kind of equality

for that held in the original state of nature. “Instead of destroying natural equality, the fundamental

compact substitute, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that

is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become everyone

equal by convention and legal right” (SC; Book 1; Chapter 9)

The Forms of Government Compatible with the Social Contract After discussing the advantages and

disadvantages of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy, Rousseau states that an elected aristocracy is the

best form of government. He criticizes democracy as impractical because of the continual requirement for

them to assemble. He says that hereditary aristocracy is the worst form of government and that in a

monarchy, those who become counselors are often incompetent. (SC; Book 2; Chapters 3–6)

Obligations of the Makers of the Social Contract Rousseau believes that the makers of the social

contract have duties to the society they create. “Every service a citizen can render the State he ought to

render as soon as the Sovereign demands it; but the Sovereign, for its part, cannot impose upon its

subjects any fetters that are useless to the community, nor can it even wish to do so” (SC; Book 2;

Chapter 4)

Dissolving the Social Contract Rousseau says that the state may dissolve in two ways. “First, when the

prince ceases to administer the state in accordance with the laws and usurps the Sovereign power. . . . The

same thing happens when the members of the government severally usurp the power they should exercise

only as a body” (SC; Book 2; Chapter 10). He explains that “When the State is dissolved, the abuse of

government, whatever it is, bears the common name of anarchy To distinguish, democracy degenerates

into ochlocracy [government by a mob], and aristocracy into oligarchy [government by a small number],

and I would add that royalty degenerates into tyranny,” that is, government by one who takes the

authority without having a right to it.

Rousseau explains that all states come to an end. “The body politic, as well as the human body, begins to

die as soon as it is born, and carries in itself the causes of its destruction. But both may have a constitution

that is more or less robust and suited to preserve them a longer or a shorter time. The constitution of a

man is the work of nature; that of the State the work of art. It is not in men's power to prolong their own

lives; bit it is for them to prolong as much as possible the life of the State, by giving it the best possible

constitution. The best constituted State will have an end; but it will end later than any other, unless some

unforeseen accident brings about its untimely destruction” (SC; Book 2 ;Chapter 11).

Freedom of Thought and Religion by Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677)

In this lesson, you learned that many Enlightenment thinkers challenged old beliefs with their new

ideas. Baruch Spinoza was another influential Enlightenment thinker.

Spinoza was born in Holland. His family was part of a community of Jews who had fled Portugal during

the Inquisition. The Holy Office of the Inquisition was a Roman Catholic court that tried to find and

punish heretics, or those who held religious beliefs in conflict with the church. Spain had established its

Inquisition in 1480. Portugal had done the same in 1536. Thousands of Jews were put on trial, and many

were killed. Many other Jews fled Spain and Portugal to establish new Jewish communities elsewhere.

Spinoza was educated in the Orthodox Jewish tradition, but he also studied the works of Rene Descartes,

Thomas Hobbes, and other writers of the period. He made a living polishing lenses for glasses. He

became well known for his liberal views in politics and religion. His independent ideas even led to his

excommunication from the Jewish community.

Below are short excerpts from an essay by Spinoza. He is writing about natural rights, or the rights that

belong to people “by nature”—that is, simply because they are human beings. Which natural right is he

writing about?

If men's minds were as easily controlled as their tongues, every king would sit safely on his throne, and

government by compulsion [force] would cease [end]. . . .

However . . . no man's mind can possibly lie wholly at the disposition of another, for no one can willingly

transfer his natural right of free reason and judgment, or be compelled [forced] to so to do.

For this reason, government which attempts to control minds is accounted [considered to be] tyrannical,

and it is considered an abuse of sovereignty [independence] and a usurpation [taking by force] of the

rights of subjects to seek to prescribe [command] what shall be accepted as true, or rejected as false, or

what opinions should actuate [guide] men in their worship of God.