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-20 pandemic. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Hobbes's view of the relationship between citizens and the state is marked 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 sought to find the best way to prevent such conflict. The destruction caused by war and unrest must be avoided, regardless of the side effects, and even the order imposed by an oppressive ruler is better than the chaos that would result from conflict. (Chambers, 2009). Hobbes believes that everyone has the inherent right to do whatever is necessary to ensure their own survival. In the absence of any political leader or authority, there exists a situation known as a state of nature which is inhospitable to the survival of individuals and they must therefore escape it to ensure their survival. Hobbes argues that peace is essential to human survival and that to achieve peace, the population must submit to the political authority of a ruler 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 against the threat of foreign invaders and aggressors. According to Hobbes, such a ruler comes in the form of a monarch, known as "Leviathan", whose power is absolute. This follows from Hobbes's assertion that the governance of an absolute monarch, in the form of a "singular will", will not be influenced by the particular interests of the public and will avoid disagreement over political decisions. Hobbes sees disagreement and lack of consensus as the most fundamental obstacle to order. A “diversity of opinion,” coupled with the supposedly warlike nature of people, leads to conflict and a lack of order. (Chambers, 2009) Therefore, a ruler can make all decisions necessary to maintain order without causing discord or public debate, which would be an obstacle to the survival of the people. Hobbes is not in favor of the existence of a separation of powers. Instead, he prefers that the sovereign be in charge of all areas of the state, his rule therefore being absolute and beyond reproach. According to Hobbes, citizens should always obey the leader in order to preserve order and peace. Applying Hobbes's view to this situation, citizens should comply with the laws, restrictions and regulations implemented by the Freilund government to combat the pandemic. By obeying leaders without creating discord, citizens will have the best chance of reducing the spread of the virus and, therefore, reducing risks 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 everyone and therefore there must be societal agreement between everyone regarding the legitimacy of the sovereign and his leadership. This is also called a social contract. It is not simply a contract between the people and the sovereign or vice versa, it applies to everyone. Hobbes highlights two criteria that must be met for consent to be valid. It is aboutthe absence of external physical obstacles and the requirement that an action result from a person's free will. Psychological obstacles are not considered an obstacle in this situation and therefore an emotion such as fear is not considered an obstacle to free action and legitimate consent. In this given context of the pandemic, it is likely that individuals are experiencing fear because they are worried about their health and livelihoods, as well as those of others. Hobbes does not see this as an obstacle to free consent and, therefore, when citizens obey laws and follow directives, they do so because of their own free will. Therefore, the citizens of Freilund can rightfully consent to the government's authority and obey any laws it implements. The obligation of citizens to obey the laws and follow advice is absolute, with one minor and limited exception. Hobbes provides that in cases where the government directly threatens the lives of the people, rebellion against the monarch is considered acceptable. On this basis, if Freilund's government put anyone's life in danger, they could rightly rebel. We cannot legitimately resist and rebel against the government simply because we do not agree with its ideology. However, if one does it anyway and it results in their lives being threatened, then rebellion might be justifiable simply because of the threat to their lives. Even if someone's initial reason for resisting the state was illegitimate, rebellion becomes legitimate if it creates a situation where one's life is threatened. Therefore, if a dissident group opposes and disobeys health rules 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 radically different from those of Hobbes. Locke takes an optimistic view of human nature and argues that in the state of nature, all human beings are born free and equal and can coexist peacefully with one another. The state of nature precedes political society, but does not precede morality. There are, however, certain disadvantages in the state of nature which are: the possibility of occasional wars and the application of excessively harsh punishments to those who break the laws. Locke sets out his belief in the existence of a natural law, under which all individuals are guaranteed certain fundamental, unalienable rights, namely "life, liberties and property". Locke further argues that it is favorable for individuals to form a social contract and create a political society where these rights are guaranteed and where there are mechanisms that allow for the avoidance and resolution of problems that may arise in the state of nature. Locke asserts that the exercise of political power is only legitimate to the extent that people consent to it. Individuals cannot be legitimately subjected to political power without their consent. Locke considers consent to be legitimate to the extent that it is rational to consent to something. To determine whether consent is rational or not, one must ask whether consenting to political power will protect one's rights. The mere promise of security and protection is not considered sufficient to make consent legitimate; the ideal of justice must also be ensured. There are certain inalienable rights that cannot be legitimately waived and that cannot be legitimately infringed upon by the state. On this basis, individuals cannot legitimately consent to slavery because it would pose a threat totheir very survival and would therefore be irrational. It would make no sense for an individual to consent to a government that leaves them with fewer rights than they would otherwise have. Locke favors civil government as the best alternative to the state of nature. It implies a state in which citizens hold ultimate and definitive sovereignty, because all who exercise power are accountable to the people. In civil society, citizens have a role to play in influencing the policy implemented by the state since they are responsible for electing those who create the laws. This implies the existence and functioning of a rotating legislature whose members are elected by the people. State organs operate within the framework of the separation of powers, with the legislative, executive and judicial branches each having an independent role. This ensures that the state operates within the rule of law, meaning that the law applies to everyone and no one is exempt from obeying it. As the laws also apply to the members of the legislature themselves, this reduces the risk of corruption, as those who make the laws can be prosecuted for violating them, just like any other member of society . Likewise, the incentives to implement laws that unjustly restrict freedom are reduced, because those creating the laws would infringe on their own freedoms, as well as those of the people as a whole. In a situation where the people elected representatives to Parliament who make laws, they indirectly give their consent to the creation of laws. Given that the regulations introduced by the Freilund government ostensibly aim to protect the health of everyone in the country, it could be argued that although these laws restrict freedom, they can be legitimately accepted. Thus, the people should obey regulations as long as they do not disproportionately infringe on their rights. Locke emphasizes that political power involves the right to create and enforce laws as well as to defend the state against aggression by foreign powers, with the aim of protecting the state. interests of the population. Locke further believes that the only legitimate purposes of government are the defense of the liberty and property of the people. If the state acts against citizens, then its conduct is illegitimate. It could be argued that the outbreak of the virus poses a sufficiently serious threat to the well-being of the population of Freilund and that the measures taken to mitigate its harmful effects are legitimate to the extent that they will protect the well-being of the citizens. However, if a political leader acts despotically and unjustly deprives citizens of their freedom and property, citizens have the right to withdraw their consent, remove the government and replace it. On this basis, if the Freilund government exploited the pandemic as an opportunity to act tyrannically and deprive the people of their basic rights, it would be acceptable for the people to overthrow the government and replace it. According to Locke, people not only have a negative duty to refrain from harming others and their property, but 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 residents of Freilund should refrain from any actions that could contribute to the spread of the virus, as this could harm the health of the population. 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. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a. 1.