This essay will compare the political ideas of Hobbes and Locke in the context of the relationship between the government of the fictional state of Freilund and its citizens during the K-pandemic 20. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Hobbes's view of the relationship between citizens and the state is characterized by notions of obedience to the rule of an absolute monarch, described as “Leviathan,” in order to preserve order and peace in society. Chambers ( 2009) explains that Hobbes was largely concerned with the prospect of conflict within a society and aimed to find the best way to prevent such conflict. Destruction caused by war and disorder must be avoided, regardless of any side effects, and even the order imposed by an oppressive ruler is better than the chaos that would result from a conflict (Hobbes, 2009). sovereign or political authority, there exists a situation known as the state of nature which is inhospitable to the survival of individuals and therefore they must escape it to ensure their own survival. Hobbes argues that peace is essential for human survival and that, to achieve peace, the population must submit to the political authority of a leader who will act to ensure the preservation of civil society. It is the duty of such a leader to protect citizens from harm inflicted by other citizens and to defend the nation from the threat of foreign invaders and aggressors. Such a leader, according to Hobbes, comes in the form of a monarch, known as “Leviathan,” whose power is absolute. This follows from Hobbes's assertion that the rule of an absolute monarch, in the form of a “singular will,” will not be influenced by the vested interests of the public and will avoid disagreements over political decisions. Hobbes considers disagreement and lack of consensus to be the fundamental obstacle to order. A “diversity of opinion,” coupled with the seemingly belligerent nature of people, leads to conflict and an absence of order. (Chambers, 2009) Therefore, a leader can make any decision necessary to maintain order without incurring discord and public debate, which would constitute an obstacle to the survival of the population. Hobbes is not in favor of the existence of a separation of powers. Instead, it is in favor of the sovereign being responsible for all areas of the state, therefore his government is absolute and irreproachable. According to Hobbes, citizens should always obey the leader to preserve order and peace. In applying Hobbes's point of view to this situation, citizens should comply with all laws, restrictions, and regulations implemented by Freilund's government to address the pandemic. By obeying leaders without creating discord, citizens will have the best chance of reducing the spread of the virus and thereby reducing risk and adverse health effects. Hobbes' views on consent and its legitimacy are also particularly relevant in this situation. Hobbes believes that the sovereign governs for all, and therefore there must be social agreement among all regarding the legitimacy of the sovereign and his leadership. This is also known as a social contract. It is not simply a contract between the people and the sovereign or vice versa, it applies to everyone. Hobbes outlines two criteria that must be met for consensus to be valid. This is the absence of external physical impediments and the requirement that an action occurs by the person's free will. Psychological impediments do not qualify asimpediment in this situation and therefore an emotion such as fear is not seen as an obstacle to free action and legitimate consent. In this pandemic situation, people are likely to experience fear due to concern for their own health and livelihoods, as well as those of others. Hobbes would not consider this to be an obstacle to free consent and so when citizens obey laws and follow guidelines, they do so out of free will. Therefore, the citizens of Freilund can legitimately acquiesce to the government's authority and obey all laws it implements. Citizens' obligation to obey laws and follow advice is absolute, with one small and limited exception. Hobbes predicts that in cases where the government directly threatens people's lives, a rebellion against the monarch is considered acceptable. On this basis, if Freilund's government were to endanger anyone's life, then he could rightfully rebel. One cannot legitimately resist and rebel against the government just because one does not agree with its ideology. However, if someone does it anyway and it involves a threat to their life, rebellion may be justifiable simply because of the threat to life. Even though someone's initial reason for resisting the state may have been illegitimate, rebellion becomes legitimate if it creates a situation in which his or her life is threatened. So, if a dissident group opposes and disobeys health regulations and is subsequently interned or threatened with execution, they may continue to resist the state, even if they should not have disobeyed in the first place. Locke's views on the relationship between people and government are drastically different from those of Hobbes. Locke has an optimistic view of human nature and argues that in the state of nature all people are born free and equal and can coexist peacefully with each other. The state of nature precedes political society, but does not precede morality. However, there are some drawbacks in the state of nature which are: the possibility of occasional wars and the application of excessively harsh punishments against those who break the laws. Locke outlines his belief in the existence of natural law, under which all people are guaranteed certain fundamental inalienable rights, namely "life, liberties and possessions". Locke further argues that it is favorable for individuals to form a social contract and create a political society in which these rights are guaranteed and mechanisms exist that provide for the aversion and resolution of such problems that may arise in the state of nature. Locke states that the exercise of political power is legitimate only to the extent that people consent to it. People cannot legitimately be subjected to the rule of a political power without their consent. Locke considers consent to be legitimate to the extent that it is rational to consent to something. When evaluating whether consent is rational or not, one must consider whether consent to a political power will protect one's rights. The mere promise of safety and protection is not considered sufficient to make consent legitimate; the ideal of justice must also be ensured. There are some inalienable rights which cannot legitimately be waived and which cannot be legitimately violated by the State. On this basis, individuals cannot legitimately consent to slavery as it would pose a threat to their very survival and is therefore irrational. It would make no sense for an individual to acquiesce to a government that leaves him with fewer rights than he would otherwise have. Locke favors civil government as the best alternative to the state of nature. This implies a state inin which citizens hold ultimate and final sovereignty because all those who exercise power are accountable to the people. In civil society, citizens have a role in influencing the policy implemented by the state because they are responsible for electing those who create the laws. This entails the existence and functioning of a rotating legislature whose members are elected by the people. The organs of state operate within the separation of powers, the legislative, executive and judicial branches each having an independent role. This ensures that the state operates under the rule of law, which means that the law applies to everyone and no one is exempt from obeying the law. Since the laws also apply to the same members of the legislative body, the likelihood of corruption is reduced because those who make the laws can be prosecuted for violating them, just like any other member of society. Likewise, there is less reason to implement laws that unfairly limit freedom, since those who create the laws would be violating their own freedoms, as well as those of people in general. In a situation where people elect representatives in parliament who make laws, they indirectly give their consent to the creation of laws. Since the regulations introduced by Freilund's government are ostensibly intended to protect the health of everyone in the country, it could be argued that, even if these laws limit freedom, they can be legitimately accepted. Therefore people should obey the rules as long as they do not disproportionately violate their rights. Locke emphasizes that political power implies the right to create and enforce laws, as well as to defend the state from aggression by foreign powers, with the intention of protecting the interests of the population. Locke also believes that the only legitimate objectives of government are the defense of the liberty and property of the people. If the State acts against citizens, its conduct is illegitimate. It could be argued that the spread of the virus poses a sufficiently serious threat to the well-being of the population of Freilund, the actions taken to mitigate its negative effects are legitimate as they will protect the well-being of the citizens. If, however, a political leader were to act despotically and unjustly deprive citizens of their liberty and property, citizens have the right to withdraw their consent, remove the government, and replace it. On this basis, if Freilund's government used the pandemic as an opportunity to act tyrannically and deprive the people of their fundamental rights, it would be acceptable for the people to oust the government and replace it. According to Locke, people not only have a negative duty to refrain from harming other people and from interfering with their property, but they also have a positive duty to punish those who violate the laws of nature in order to promote the common good. . On this basis, the inhabitants of Freilund must refrain from taking any action that could contribute to the spread of the virus as it could have negative effects on people's health. Furthermore, citizens would also have a duty to punish those who break the laws as they would endanger the health of everyone else and therefore pose a threat to survival and stability. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay Unlike Hobbes, Locke does not believe that the existence of a wide range of different opinions in a society will pose a fundamental threat to stability. However, Locke's tolerance of people's beliefs is not absolute and involves exclusion. 1.