Disclaimer: This is an example of a student written essay.
Click here for sample essays written by our professional writers.

This essay is not an endorsement of any political party or statement. UKEssays.com does not accept payment of any kind for the publishing of political content, it has been published for educational purposes only.

Julius Caesar and John Locke’s Treatise of government

Info: 1510 words (6 pages) Essay
Published: 3rd Oct 2017 in Politics

Reference this

Julius Caesar and John Locke’s Treatise of government.

Explain the John Locke’s conspiracy’s reasons for taking action.

In conversing Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, Locke sets out his own perspective and arguments the complete power of the king to function without the agreement of the people. The main purpose of Locke’s second treatise is to sketch the suitable form for a society and government and to elucidate why his plan was suitable. Locke speaks that the only purpose for having a control is to protect the usual rights that people must enjoy simply due to the fact that they are mortal. However, when a régime or king (in this situation of Charles II), fails its individuals, the people are constrained to upheaval and start the rightful king (William, the “Great Restorer”). Thus, Locke inscribed his second treatise, in part, to show his backing for William III as king. (Locke and Laslett)

Get Help With Your Essay

If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!

Essay Writing Service

Explain any relevant concepts discussed by Locke (civil government & dissolution of government)

Locke asserts that genuine administration is based on the notion of separation of powers. Main and leading of these is the legislative influence. Locke defines the governmental power as best (Two Treatises2.149) in consuming final power over “how the power for the state shall be engaged” (2.143). The government is still destined by the rule of natural surroundings and much of what it does is set down rules that additionally the objectives of normal law and identify appropriate sentences for them (2.135). The decision-making power is then indicted with enforcing the law as it is practical in explicit cases. Captivatingly, Locke’s third power is named the “federative power” and it contains the right to act globally conferring to the law of nature.

If we relate Locke’s preparation of parting of influences to the advanced ideas of Montesquieu, we understand that they are not as diverse as they may originally seem. Locke’s federative control and the legal power as apprehensive with the local execution of the laws Locke’s policymaking power, it is more than a terminology than the thoughts that have altered. Locke deliberated arresting a person, trying an individual, and penalizing a individual as all part of the purpose of executing the rule rather than as a separate function.

The concept of an “appeal to heaven” is a significant idea in Locke’s believes. Locke accepts that people, when they leave the public of nature, make a government with some sort of constituents that stipulates which bodies are allowed to exercise which commands. Locke also undertakes that these authorities will be used to defend the rights of the individuals and to endorse the community good. In cases where there is a argument between the individuals and the government about whether the government is satisfying its duties, there is no advanced social authority to which one can appeal. The only plea left, for Locke, is the plea to God. The “appeal to heaven,” consequently, involves taking up arms against your opponent and letting God judge who is in the right.

A clear position on how Locke would assess the conspiracy according to those concepts

Locke’s theory of confrontation does not rest on on the ‘legal fiction, of direct majority rule; actually the philosophy of resistance originates from the right of civilization to society a government which is sanctioned by the assent of the majority, which places genuine responsibilities on all members of society, and which functions for community good.

The utmost danger to harmony and accord in culture — primary to its disaggregation — is an unlawful modification of its lawmaking that leaves no familiar authority. Confrontation to unlawful administration act is meant to anticipate this possibility. Where this confrontation is too little or too late we need to regulate the conditions in which it is still defensible, despite a lack of former vigilance, though we must suppose that late and incomplete action may demonstrate to be ineffective. It is the failure of government that defends resistance and, henceforth, legitimate confrontation is reliant on upon an precise, judicious and just valuation of government’s activities.

Find Out How UKEssays.com Can Help You!

Our academic experts are ready and waiting to assist with any writing project you may have. From simple essay plans, through to full dissertations, you can guarantee we have a service perfectly matched to your needs.

View our services

Evaluation of the decision how Locke would kill Caesar and how he would judge the actions of such characters as Caesar, Brutus, Cassius, and Mark Antony. (Direct textual analysis of both works.)

In Shakespeare’sJulius Caesar, Brutus’s killing of Julius Caesar is an ethically vague event. Therefore, we under no circumstances truly know whether we must back Brutus or Caesar because, while Brutus is labelled as a decent man who is performing in the welfares of the average Roman, Caesar enjoys traits that Shakespeare has made able to be understood as strong and good or as tyrannical.

In the play, (Shakespeare) Brutus is exemplified as the honorable Roman with Marc Antony, his opponent, shouting him “the noblest Roman of them all.”(5.5.69) since of this point, if Brutus had been the one to propose the murder of Caesar, the murder could be deliberated an ethical, essential act. But it was Cassius, not Brutus, who originated up with the idea. Cassius’s cautious operation of Brutus is the basis of the act, meaning that, from the start, the idea was unreliable. Even when Brutus states “Let us be sacrifices, but not butchers”(2.1.167), which must be understood as him trying to take a additional moral path, he moreover embraces “Let’s carve him as a dish fit for the gods”(2.1.174), which exemplifies the fact that, good intents or not, the collaborators are still arguing murder, and mutilation at that. While Shakespeare is able to demonstrate murder, the worst likely action, as probably the ethical path, what regulates the spectator’s opinion of the entire play is one query: In the public, can assassination ever be reflected the ethically right option?

The response, according to the theorists Locke, Rousseau, Kant, and many others is no, it cannot ever be measured ethical. These thinkers’ views can preeminently be shortened by a quote from Locke’sSecond Treatise on Government, that “all mankind being all equivalent and sovereign, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or belongings”, which comprises that murder is thought to be measured completely incorrect. While this quote, one of the establishing principles of our own state, is totally against assassination, I believe that, in our flawed world, it is tough to say an act is individually incorrect and that there doesn’t be even one situation that homicide could be measured the finest option. Though the quote is individually against killing, it also includes “liberty” as somewhat that “ought not to be damage[ed]”, which, as oppressors typically infringe upon rights, brings up the query: When two of these morals oppose, what should do we do?

I believe while Brutus and the plotters have good intents that could cause the killing to be tolerated, they do not, in my observance, have the essential circumstances. The plotters’ belief that Caesar will become a oppressor, and that preventive action is necessary to protect Rome, is founded upon many expectations. And in this case, when homicide is the preventive action, I think expectations, right or wrong, aren’t sufficient to defend a killing, but undisputable proof of Caesar’s oppression is essential.

While I do not wholly agree with the absolutist declaration of Locke and Rousseau that killing is individually depraved and is not ever the best choice, I do trust that the individual or people anticipating killing a single need to have the best of purposes and undisputable evidence to support the motive for the decision. While murder can never be measured a good action, it will continuously be spoiled for good motives, it can be measured the best way of act in that it may be used to defuse proven oppressors and other persons that, if gone in our world, may cause the deaths and grief of many more person. In the case ofJulius Caesar, the conspirators’ movements cannot be reflected ethical or defensible because they required undisputable proof that Caesar was an oppressor and consequently required the necessary state in which murder could be accepted as a essential action.

Bibliography:

  • Locke, John, and Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Print. Shakespeare, William, and Arthur L. Humphreys.The Oxford Shakespeare. ; Julius Caesar.Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
  • Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy Of Julius Caesar. Champaign, Ill.: Project Gutenberg. Print.

 

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

DMCA / Removal Request

If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have your work published on UKEssays.com then please: