Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Sana'a University Journal of Human Sciences
Vol. 4 | No. 1 | Page 513 – 528 | 2025
|
https://journals.su.edu.ye/index.php/jhs
8677-ISSN : 2958
41513 528 -
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of
Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
Researcher, Department of English Language
Faculty of Arts & Humanities Sana'a University -Yemen
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
Abstract:
John Locke's philosophy, as argued by Graham A. J. Rogers (Oct 24, 2024), represents a pivotal shift
in Enlightenment thought, emphasizing individual rights, empiricism, and the social contract
(Britannica). His revolutionary ideas challenge the divine right of kings and advocate for government
as a protector of life, liberty, and property. Locke's Two Treatises of Government is a foundational
text in political philosophy that articulates a revolutionary framework for understanding government
and individual rights. In the first treatise, Locke critiques the divine right of kings, arguing against the
notion that monarchs possess inherent divine authority over their subjects. In the second treatise, Locke
outlines his vision of a civil society formed through a social contract, where individuals consent to
surrender some freedoms in exchange for the protection of their fundamental rights by a government.
He argues that if a government fails to uphold these rights or acts against the interests of its citizens,
the people have the right to revolt and establish a new government. This philosophical revolution has
had a profound and lasting impact on the development of modern political thought, particularly in the
context of revolutions, constitutions, human rights, and the establishment of liberal democracies .
Key Words: Revolution, Patriarcha, Divine Right, Social Contract, Consent.
Introduction
Introduction
John Locke, the founder of liberalism, is an
English civil servant, physician, and an
influential political philosopher. Yahaya
(2020) states that John Locke “was a
multifaceted individual at one time a doctor,
economist, university teacher and other times a
politician and public administrator” (47).
Locke, as Kelly (2022) points out was born in
1632 in Wrington, Somerset. He was deeply
influenced by the English Civil War, a conflict
that shaped his early worldview. His father
served in the Parliamentary forces, which
helped him study in Westminster School, then
in Oxford, and instilled in him a sense of the
importance of governance and the complexities
of power dynamics. This background was
pivotal as he witnessed significant events,
including the execution of Charles I while
attending Westminster School (184 .)
However, his exposure to medicine and natural
science allowed him to forge connections with
influential figures like Anthony Ashley
Cooper, the Earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury's
involvement in radical politics and his
opposition to Charles II and James, Duke of
York, exposed Locke to the dangers of
authoritarian rule and the importance of limited
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
government. (Kelly, 2022, p. 184). The
precarious nature of Locke's political career
became evident during the Exclusion Crisis
when Shaftesbury's opposition to James, Duke
of York, led to his fall from favour in 1675.
Following this political upheaval, Locke sought
refuge in France from 1675 to 1679. His return
to England coincided with a brief resurgence of
Shaftesbury's influence, but the subsequent
uncovering of the Rye House Plot to assassinate
Charles II and James forced Locke into exile in
the Netherlands in 1683. This period of hiding
was fraught with danger; Locke feared for his
life due to his association with radical politics
and his manuscript for the Two Treatises of
Government, which aimed to justify the
exclusion of James II from the throne and
advocate for a popular right to revolution
(Kelly, 2022, p. 185) .
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 marked a
significant turning point in English history.
Prince William of Orange's successful invasion
led to the overthrow of James II, allowing
Locke to return to England and publish the Two
Treatises anonymously due to their
revolutionary implications. He played a
significant role in the new government, serving
as a commissioner on the Board of Trade and
Plantations (Kelly, 2022, p. 185) .
In conclusion, John Locke's political
philosophy was profoundly shaped by his life
experiences and historical context. His
engagement with radical politics, his
experiences in exile due to fears of persecution,
and his eventual participation in the events
surrounding the Glorious Revolution
contributed to his development as a political
thinker. Locke's Two Treatises of Government
represents a revolutionary shift in political
philosophy. By challenging the divine right of
kings and advocating for a government based
on consent and individual rights, Locke not
only justified the political upheaval of his time
but also laid the foundation for modern
democratic principles that continue to shape
democratic societies today.
Many scholars have approached Locke’s
political philosophy from different angles. In
this study, the researcher included three of the
best studies that have investigated revolution in
Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. A
Senior Honors Thesis entitled The Right of
Revolution: An Analysis of John Locke and
Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract Theories
conducted by John O’Toole, published in May
2011, explores the concept of the right of
revolution as articulated by two foundational
political philosophers: John Locke and Thomas
Hobbes. It examines how each philosopher
conceptualizes the social contract and the
implications of their theories for the legitimacy
of governmental authority and the conditions
under which citizens may justifiably revolt.
This dissertation delves into the foundational
concepts of social contract theory, which is
crucial for the researcher’s exploration of
Locke. O'Toole's insights can deepen my
understanding of how Locke's ideas fit within
the broader philosophical landscape of his time.
Additionally, it may provide historical context
regarding the political turmoil during Locke's
life, such as the English Civil War and the
Glorious Revolution. This context is essential
for understanding the motivations behind
Locke’s arguments in Two Treatises of
Government. Furthermore, this dissertation
clarifies key concepts such as natural rights, the
legitimacy of government, and the conditions
for justified rebellion which is vital as the
researcher analyzes Locke's arguments and
their implications for revolutionary thought.
A research paper entitled The Call for a World
Constitutional Convention: An Application of
John Locke's Theory of Revolution, conducted
by David W. Felder, was published in 1998. It
outlines the fundamental principles of John
Locke's political philosophy, particularly his
views on natural rights, the social contract, and
the right of revolution, highlighting Locke's
emphasis that governments derive their
legitimacy from the consent of the governed. It
further explores the implications of Locke's
theories for contemporary governance and the
idea of a global constitutional framework. This
can help me frame my analysis of Two
Treatises of Government in a contemporary
context. Incorporating insights from Felder's
paper into the current research provides the
researcher with a broader understanding of how
Locke's revolutionary philosophy can be
applied today, enriching my analysis of the
Two Treatises of Government and
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
demonstrating its continued relevance in
addressing contemporary political issues.
Another study is chapter 6 entitled Locke -
Liberalism and the Externalization of Conflict
of the book Conflict, from Paul Kelly’s book
Conflict, War and Revolution: The Problem of
Politics in International Political Thought,
published in 2022. In this chapter, Paul Kelly
examines John Locke’s contributions to liberal
thought, particularly in relation to conflict and
its externalization. Kelly outlines how Locke’s
philosophy emphasizes individual rights and
the importance of property, which are
foundational to liberalism. He argues that
Locke’s view of the state is rooted in the
protection of these rights. The chapter further
explores how Locke’s government is meant to
resolve conflicts and maintain order, but it also
raises questions about its effectiveness in
dealing with conflicts that extend beyond
national borders. Incorporating insights from
Paul Kelly's chapter into the current study
provides a nuanced understanding of Locke’s
philosophy as it relates to conflict and
revolution. This enriches the researcher’s
analysis of Two Treatises of Government by
situating Locke's ideas within broader
discussions about liberalism, individual rights,
and the complexities of human conflict in both
historical and contemporary contexts .
Statement of the Problem
The present research paper is carried out to
investigate how revolution is portrayed in the
philosophy of John Locke, particularly the Two
Treatises of Government. By examining
Locke’s ideas on natural rights, social contract,
and the historical context that contributed to
shaping Locke’s philosophy, the study aspires
to provide a comprehensive understanding of
Locke's contributions to political thought and
their lasting impact on contemporary society.
More specifically the study seeks to achieve the
following objectives, it intends to:
•Investigate the historical and social conditions
of 17th-century England that influenced
Locke's thought, including the English Civil
War and the Glorious Revolution .
•Examine Locke's core ideas, such as natural
rights and the social contract to understand
their significance in political philosophy .
•sEvaluate how Locke’s theories have shaped
modern democratic governance,
constitutional law, and human rights
discourses .
Significance of the Research
The significance of the research titled
Revolution in the Philosophy of John Locke:
Two Treatises of Government lies in its critical
examination of Locke's foundational
contributions to modern political thought and
the enduring impact of his ideas on
contemporary governance and individual
rights. By analyzing Locke's arguments
regarding natural rights, the social contract, and
the role of government, this research
illuminates how Locke’s philosophy not only
challenged prevailing notions of authority in
the 17th century but also laid the groundwork
for liberal democracy. Furthermore, by
situating Locke within his historical context
and exploring his influence on subsequent
political movements and documents, the study
underscores the revolutionary nature of his
ideas and their relevance in addressing current
debates surrounding liberty, justice, and the
relationship between citizens and the state.
Ultimately, this research aims to foster a deeper
understanding of Locke's legacy and its
implications for contemporary society .
Scope of the Research
The research entitled Revolution in the
Philosophy of John Locke: Two Treatises of
Government is subject to certain limitations
and scope constraints that must be
acknowledged. Primarily, the focus is
narrowed to Locke's political philosophy as
articulated in his Two Treatises of Government,
which may overlook other significant aspects
of his work, such as his theories on
epistemology and personal identity.
Additionally, while the research aims to
analyze Locke's influence on modern political
thought, it may not encompass the full
spectrum of reactions to his ideas across
different cultures and historical contexts.
Furthermore, the analysis is confined to a
specific timeframe, limiting the exploration of
how contemporary events and issues might
reinterpret or challenge Locke's principles.
These constraints underscore the need for
further interdisciplinary studies that can
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
provide a more holistic view of Locke's
philosophy and its implications in today's
world .
Definitions of the Terms
1 .Divine Rights: Divine right refers to the
belief that monarchs derive their authority
directly from God, rather than being
accountable to the people or any earthly
authority (Burgess, 1992, p. 837). Locke, in
the First Treatise of Government, critiques
this notion, arguing that political power
should not be based on divine sanction but
rather on the consent of the governed.
“Scripture or reason, I am sure, do not
anywhere say so, notwithstanding the noise
of divine right, as if divine authority hath
subjected us to the unlimited will of
another §( ”4 .)
2 .Natural Rights: Natural rights, according to
Locke, are fundamental rights inherent to all
individuals by virtue of being human. These
rights include life, liberty, and property. The
preservation of these natural rights is a
primary purpose of government; thus, any
legitimate government must protect and
uphold these rights. If a government fails to
do so, Locke argues that citizens have the
right to revolt against it.
3 .Social Contract: The social contract is a
theoretical agreement among individuals to
form a society and establish a government to
protect their natural rights—namely, life,
liberty, and property (Dienstag, 1996, p.
988). According to Locke, this contract is
based on the idea that legitimate political
authority arises from the consent of the
governed. If a government violates this
contract by failing to protect the rights of its
citizens or acting against their interests, the
people have the right to withdraw their
consent and establish a new government.
Methodology
In the current research paper entitled Revolution
in the Philosophy of John Locke: Two Treatises
of Government, the researcher employs a
qualitative analytical method, focusing on
textual analysis and historical contextualization.
This approach involves a close reading of
Locke's seminal work, examining key themes
such as natural rights, the social contract, and
government legitimacy. The study also tends to
explore the historical context in which Locke
wrote the Two Treatises of Government,
including the political upheavals of 17th-century
England, to understand how these influences
shaped his philosophy. By synthesizing primary
texts with secondary scholarly interpretations,
the researcher elucidates the revolutionary
aspects of Locke's thought and its enduring
impact on modern political theory. This method
enables a comprehensive understanding of
Locke's contributions to Enlightenment
philosophy and their implications for
contemporary governance .
The Two Treatises of Government
Locke's ideas about revolution were
revolutionary in his time, especially the Two
Treatises of Government, as they challenged
the traditional view of the divine right of
monarchs, who claimed to rule by divine right
and the idea that governments were absolute
and could not be questioned. As stated in the
Complete Works of John Locke (2017), “these
two famous treatises was first published
anonymously in December 1689 as a refutation
of Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, a 1680 book that
provides a theory of absolute monarchy and the
divine right of kings” (1016). The doctrine of
the divine right was prevalent at the time,
stating that kings were God’s appointed rulers
on earth, and that challenging their authority
was seen as challenging God’s will. Burgess
(1992) argues that “the State of MONARCHIE
is the supremist thing upon earth: For Kings are
not only GODS Lieutenants upon earth, and sit
upon GODS throne, but even by GOD himself
they are called Gods” (837). Rahman (2024)
nearly expresses the same idea, “kings were
seen as divinely chosen figures, wielding not
only secular power but also a spiritual influence
that made them almost sacred ( ”609 .)
In the First Treatise of Government, Locke
critiques the divine right of kings’ theory,
which argues that monarchs derive their power
directly from God. He introduces the First
Treatise as a refutation of the idea that absolute
monarchy is based on divine right. “The First
of the Treatises attacks patriarchalism in the
form of a sentence-by-sentence refutation of
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
[Robert] Filmer's Patriarcha. Locke proceeds
through Filmer’s arguments, contesting his
proofs from Scripture and ridiculing them as
senseless, until concluding that no government
can be justified by an appeal to the divine right
of kings” (Locke, 2017, p. 1016). For
challenging monarchs’ claim of divine right,
Rosalie Cole (1991) argues that “Locke’s
challenge to traditional absolutism arises in part
from the Protestant notion that each individual
has a direct relation to God. Hence, no political
intermediary (i.e. a king or monarch) is
necessary. God gives man free will to form his
own civil society” (18). It should be noted that
there are also several factors that prompt Locke
to challenge Monarchs’ alleged divine right to
rule including natural rights philosophy, social
contract theory, and other historical events such
as the English Civil War and the Glorious
Revolution. These factors together create a
solid framework for Locke's arguments against
absolute monarchy .
In the Second Treatise, Locke presents his
alternative view of government and authority,
which is based on the natural rights and the
social contract. Locke argues that individuals
possess inherent rights to life, liberty, and
property, which are not granted by any ruler but
are intrinsic to human nature. “MEN being, as
has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and
independent, no one can be put out of this
estate, and subjected to the political power of
another, without his own consent” (Locke,
2017, para. § 95). According to Locke,
legitimate political authority arises not from
divine right but from the consent of the
governed. “That the beginning of politic society
depends upon the consent of the individuals, to
join into, and make one society; who, when
they are thus incorporated, might set up what
form of government they thought fit” (§ 106).
This means that citizens give up some freedoms
in exchange for the government protecting their
natural rights – life, liberty, and property.
However, for Locke, if the government fails in
this duty, the people have the right to withdraw
their consent and overthrow it. “there remains
still in the people a supreme power to remove
or alter the legislative, when they find the
legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in
them” (§ 149) This idea was highly influential
in revolutions like the American Revolution
and the French Revolution .
The First Treatise of Government
In the First Treatise of Government, Locke
engages in a philosophical critique of Robert
Filmer's arguments in Patriarcha, which
arguably claimed for a hereditary ruler with
God-given authority, defending the idea of
absolute monarchy based on biblical
patriarchal authority. Locke categorically
denies the idea of divine right monarchy, which
asserts that rulers derive their authority directly
from God, arguing that neither scripture nor
reason would approve of subjecting us to the
absolute domination of another. “Scripture or
reason, I am sure, do not anywhere say so,
notwithstanding the noise of divine right, as if
divine authority hath subjected us to the
unlimited will of another” (Locke, 2017, para.
§ 4). Locke states that he is specifically
addressing Filmer's claim of Adam's
sovereignty, which is based on three
foundations; "God's creation of Adam, the
dominion he gave him over Eve, and the
dominion he had as a father over his children:
all which I shall particularly consider” (§ 14).
These foundations form the sum of all of
Filmer's arguments regarding Adam's
sovereignty. Locke starts this treatise by
introducing Filmer's position in Patriarcha,
which asserts that humans are not born free
because they live in complete subjugation to
their parents, and thus they cannot choose their
rulers or forms of government. "SIR Robert
Filmer’s great position is, that men are not
naturally free. This is the foundation on which
his absolute monarchy stands, and from which
it erects itself to a height, that its power is above
every power” (Locke, 2017, para. § 6). This
belief prompts Filmer to argue that since people
are inherently subjugated, monarchs possess
absolute power by divine right .
To prove his claim, Filmer introduces the
concept of “fatherly authority”. Locke
summarizes Filmer's central argument that men
are born into subjection to their parents, which
he equates with royal authority. “to prove this
grand position of his, he tells us. Men are born
in subjection to their parents, and therefore,
cannot be free. And this authority of parents, he
calls royal authority, 14. Fatherly authority,
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
right of fatherhood, 20” (§ 6). Locke critiques
this view, questioning why Filmer does not
clearly define what “fatherly authority” means,
especially since he claims it is unlimited. 'Have
told us expressly, what that fatherly authority
is, have defined it, though not limited it,
because, in some other treatises of his, he tells
us, it is unlimited and unlimitable" (§ 6). This
lack of clarity weakens Filmer's argument for
absolute monarchy, as it leaves open the
question of the nature and limits of parental
power .
Then Filmer moves to confirm that the
authority of kings is derived from the
patriarchal power of Adam and his
descendants. He argues that Adam, as the first
man, was granted a unique authority over the
world and that this power was inherited by
subsequent patriarchs. This establishes a direct
lineage of authority from Adam to kings,
suggesting that monarchs possess divine rights
akin to parental rights. “This lordship which
Adam by command had over the whole world,
and by right descending from him the patriarchs
did enjoy, was as large and ample as the
absolute dominion of any monarch, which hath
been since the creation” (Locke, 2017, para. §
8). Filmer stresses that Adam and the patriarchs
held absolute power—specifically, the power
of life and death, the ability to make war and
peace. "Dominion of life and death, making
war and concluding peace. Adam and the
patriarchs had absolute power of life and death.
Kings, in the right of parents, succeed to the
exercise of supreme jurisdiction" (§ 8). Filmer
asserts that because kings inherit their authority
from this divine lineage, they are above the law.
This notion implies that kings are not
accountable to anyone except God, reinforcing
their absolute power. “As kingly power is by
the law of God, so it hath no inferior law to limit
it; Adam was lord of all. The father of a family
governs by no other law, than by his own will.
The superiority of princes is above laws” (§ 8).
To reinforce these points, Filmer claims that a
perfect monarchy is one where the king is free
from any legal constraints. "A perfect kingdom
is that wherein the king rules all things
according to his own will §( "8 .)
In opposition to Filmer’s ideas, Locke, though
acknowledges that parents have authority over
their children, contends that this familial
authority does not translate into political
dominion. The moral obligations children owe
to their parents do not justify absolute political
power. For opposing the absolute rule of
kings, "In opposition, therefore, to our author's
doctrine, that Adam was monarch of the whole
world, founded on this place, I shall shew, That
by this grant, i. Gen. 28. God gave no
immediate power to Adam over men, over his
children, over those of his own species; and so,
he was not made ruler, or monarch, by this
charter” (Locke, 2017, para. § 24). Locke also
emphasizes that Adam's authority was not
automatically passed on to his descendants.
Locke argues that Adam did not have the power
to grant absolute dominion to his children
without explicit consent. “Our author tells us in
the words of Mr. Selden, that Adam by the
donation from God, Gen. i. 28. was made the
general lord of all things, not without such a
private dominion to himself, as without his
grant did exclude his children” (§ 21).
Therefore, the claim that kings inherit authority
from Adam is flawed. Locke concludes, “that
by this grant God gave him not private
dominion over the inferior creatures, but right
in common with all mankind; so, neither was he
monarch, upon the account of the property here
given him” (§ 24). This critique not only
challenges Filmer’s arguments but also
contributes significantly to Enlightenment
thought, influencing modern democratic
principles and theories of government .
In Chapter III, Locke challenges Filmer's
allegation that Adam's title to sovereignty by
creation. Locke starts by summarizing Filmer's
position that Adam was appointed monarch at
creation, even without subjects. Filmer argues
that Adam had a natural right to govern his
descendants. “But let us see, how he puts his
creation and this appointment together. By the
appointment of God, says Sir Robert, as soon
as Adam was created, he was monarch of the
world, though he had no subjects; for though
there could not be actual government till there
were subjects” (Locke, 2017, para. § 16). Locke
critiques this notion by pointing out the
contradiction; if there were no subjects, then
there could be no actual governance. He
emphasizes that Filmer himself acknowledges
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
the absence of subjects at the time of Adam’s
creation. “But he could not de facto be by
providence constituted the governor of the
world, at a time when there was actually no
government, no subjects to be governed, which
our author here confesses” (§ 16). Therefore, it
is impossible for Adam to have been
established as a governor or monarch when
there was no one to govern. This point further
undermines Filmer's argument about divine
appointment. Filmer had foreseen this
criticism, arguing that though Adam was not a
father at the time of his creation and thus not a
monarch in reality, he was still a monarch “in
habit”. “Yet by the right of nature, it was due to
Adam to be governor of his posterity: though
not in act, yet at least in habit, Adam was a king
from his creation” (§ 16). The idea that Adam
was a king "in habit" but not in practice is seen
as an illogical claim by Locke. Locke
mockingly counters that Filmer must have been
an author “in habit” before even he wrote a
book. “And thus, Sir Robert was an author
before he writ his book; not in act it is true, but
in habit” (§ 18) Locke’s response highlights the
absurdity of Filmer’s argument using irony. By
suggesting that Filmer’s claim about Adam
being a monarch “in habit” is as nonsensical as
claiming someone is an author without writing
even a pamphlet .
Locke concludes by identifying two key
falsehoods in Filmer's argument; firstly, the
timing of God's grant. Locke points out that
while Genesis 1:28 follows Adam's creation in
the text “first, It is false that God made that
grant to Adam, as soon as he was created, since,
tho’ it stands in the text immediately after his
creation, yet it is plain it could not be spoken to
Adam, till after Eve was made and brought to
him: and how then could he be monarch by
appointment as soon as created” (§ 16).
Therefore, claiming that Adam was appointed
monarch immediately upon creation is
misleading. The second falsehood is that divine
appointment contradicts natural rights.
“Secondly, were it true that God's actual
donation appointed Adam monarch of the
world as soon as he was created, yet the reason
here given for it would not prove it; but it would
always be a false inference, that God, by a
positive donation, appointed Adam monarch of
the world, because, by right of nature, it was
due to Adam to be governor of his posterity” (§
16). Locke says that if Adam inherently had the
right to govern due to nature, then a positive
divine appointment would be redundant. By
emphasizing natural rights over divine
appointment, Locke lays the groundwork for
his political philosophy that values individual
rights and consent as the foundation of
legitimate government .
In Chapter V, Locke focuses on rebutting
Filmer's claim that Adam was entitled to
authority due to the subjection of Eve. Locke
refers to Genesis 3:16, where God speaks to
Eve after the Fall, suggesting a dynamic of
desire and rule between husband and wife.
"THE next place of scripture we find our author
builds his monarchy of Adam on, is iii. Gen. 26.
And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he
shall rule over thee” (Locke, 2017, para. § 44).
Locke challenges Filmer's interpretation by
arguing that this verse does not establish Adam
as a monarch or imply a system of governance.
Instead, it addresses the relationship between a
husband and wife. The phrase “he shall rule
over thee” is descriptive of marital dynamics
rather than prescriptive of political authority.
Locke implies that using this scripture to justify
monarchical power is a misapplication. Locke
then turns to critique Filmer’s way of writing.
He points out that Filmer's reasoning regarding
Adam's sovereignty is convoluted and difficult
to follow. “If anyone will but carefully read our
author’s own reasoning from these words,
Observations, 244” (§ 44). He suggests that
upon closer examination, Filmer's arguments
lack clarity and coherence. He also
acknowledges that Filmer has a unique writing
style, which may contribute to the confusion.
“And consider, among other things, the line and
posterity of Adam, as he there brings them in,
he finds some difficulty to make sense of what
he says; but we allows this at present to his
peculiar way of writing, and consider the force
of the text in hand” (§ 44). Locke argues that at
the time of Adam's creation, God was not in a
position to grant privileges or favors because
humanity had just sinned (the Fall). “This was
not a time when Adam could expect any
favours, any grant of privileges, from his
offended Maker. This context undermines the
idea that Adam could have received a
legitimate grant of sovereignty from God.
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
Locke further ridicules Filmer’s argument that
this would make Adam a "poor monarch”.
“whatever Sir Robert would have him, it is
plain, God made him but a very poor monarch,
such a one, as our author himself would have
counted it no great privilege to be” (§ 45).
Through these arguments, Locke critiques Sir
Robert Filmer's arguments regarding the divine
right of kings and the legitimacy of Adam's
sovereignty over Eve and their descendants,
suggesting that such claims are not inherently
justified or logical.
In Chapter VI, Locke also addresses Filmer's
assertion that a father's natural right over his
children grants him sovereign authority.
"THERE is one thing more, and then I think I
have given you all that our author brings for
proof of Adam’s sovereignty, and that is a
supposition of a natural right of dominion over
his children, by being their father” (Locke,
2017, para. § 50). Locke critiques this idea,
suggesting that Filmer overemphasizes the
concept of fatherhood as a source of royal
authority. This perspective implies that all
rulers derive their power from familial
relationships, which Locke finds flawed. “This
title of fatherhood he is so pleased with, that
you find it brought in almost in every page;
particularly he says, not only Adam, but the
succeeding patriarchs had by right of
fatherhood royal authority over their children.
And in the same page, this subjection of
children being the fountain of all regal
authority, &c §( ”.50 .)
Locke then moves on to challenge the idea that
Adam’s creation grants him dominion over his
descendants. “[Natural dominion] so that Adam
is the only man created, and all ever since being
begotten, nobody has been born free. If we ask
how Adam comes by this power over his
children, he tells us here it is by begetting them:
and so again, Observations, 223" (§ 50). Locke
points out that if Adam's power over his
children is based solely on begetting them, then
it implies that no one is born free, which
contradicts the principle of natural rights and
freedom. Thus, Locke confidently opposes
Filmer’s view that fatherhood creates a form of
slavery for children. He argues that the act of
begetting does not diminish the freedom of
individuals; rather, it affirms their inherent
liberty. “And then I may without presumption
oppose my single opinion to his; and be
confident that my saying, that begetting of
children makes them not slaves to their fathers,
as certainly sets all mankind free, as his
affirming the contrary makes them all slaves”
(§ 51). Locke’s stance regarding this point is
that all humans are born free and should remain
so. He critiques the notion that fathers have
absolute power over their children simply
because they gave them life. “I answer, that
everyone who gives another anything, has not
always thereby a right to take it away again" (§
52). Locke here emphasizes the moral
implications of such authority. Locke asserts
that the rights of parents, as established by
nature and reinforced by the Fifth
Commandment "Honor thy father and mother",
do not equate to political dominion. He asserts
that political authority is distinct from familial
relationships. "The right therefore which
parents have by nature, and which is confirmed
to them by the 5th commandment, cannot be
that political dominion, which our author would
derive from it: for that being in every civil
society supreme somewhere, can discharge any
subject from any political obedience to any one
of his fellow subjects” (§ 64). Thus, Locke
counters Filmer's idea concerning children
honouring their parents by affirming that
honouring parents does not mean granting them
absolute sovereignty but refers to a moral
obligation rather than a political one. This duty
exists independently of any political authority,
suggesting that parents do not possess
sovereignty over their children §(66 .)
In Conclusion, Locke's critique of Filmer's
arguments represents a significant
philosophical shift towards modern democratic
principles. By rejecting the idea that kings
inherit their authority through a divine lineage,
Locke lays the groundwork for a political
theory based on individual rights, consent, and
accountability. This perspective would
profoundly influence later democratic thought
and the development of constitutional
governments, emphasizing the importance of
limiting governmental power in favour of
protecting individual freedoms and laying the
groundwork for modern political philosophy
and democratic governance .
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
The Second Treatise of Government
John Locke's Second Treatise of Government is
a foundational text in political philosophy, in
which Locke introduces his ideas for a
legitimate government based on natural rights
and a social contract. As stated in the Complete
Works of John Locke (2017), “the Second
Treatise outlines Locke’s ideas for a more
civilized society based on natural rights and
contract theory” (1016). Within the Second
Treatise, Locke lays the groundwork for the
right of revolution under certain circumstances.
He argues for a social contract between the
government and the governed. If the
government breaks this contract by violating
the people's natural rights (life, liberty,
property) or acting tyrannically, then the people
have the right to overthrow that government.
According to O'Toole (2012), “Locke’s Second
Treatise of Government, it is here that the most
explicit investigations into the right of
revolution can be found” (5). O'Toole (2012)
also states that “John Locke’s Second Treatise
of Government was used as a justification for
revolution in the late seventeenth century. His
work was to be utilized as a means by which
resistance to the sovereign could be found
reasonable. It is this notion of conditional
government that made Locke’s work so
infamous ( ”49 .)
Locke starts this treatise by discussing the
nature of political power, defining it as an
authority that creates laws, enforces penalties,
regulates property, and protects the public
good, emphasizing that legitimate power must
be derived from the consent of the governed.
“Political power, then, I take to be a right of
making laws with penalties of death, and
consequently, all less penalties, for the
regulating and preserving of property, and of
employing the force of the community, in the
execution of such laws, and the in defense of
the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all
this only for the public good" (Locke, 2017,
para. § 3). Here Locke is challenging the divine
right of kings and authoritarian rule by
asserting that political power must serve the
public interest, laying the groundwork for a
new way of governance. This new way of
governance is based on a solid philosophy that
derives its principles from the natural rights of
men. Locke asserts that to comprehend political
power correctly, one must recognize the state,
in which all men naturally exist – a state
characterized by perfect freedom and equality.
He states, "To understand political power right,
and derive it from its original, we must
consider, what state all men are naturally in,
and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order
their actions, and dispose of their possessions
and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds
of the law of nature, without asking leave, or
depending upon the will of any other man” (§
4). This assertion emphasizes that individuals
possess inherent rights that exist prior to and
independent of governmental authority. The
concept of natural freedom directly opposes
feudal hierarchies and absolute monarchies,
promoting individual rights and autonomy,
which were radical ideas at the time .
Locke further elaborates on this idea by
emphasizing that all individuals are born equal
and should have equal power and jurisdiction.
He argues that “a state also of equality, wherein
all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no
one having more than another; there being
nothing more evident, than that creatures of the
same species and rank, promiscuously born to
all the same advantages of nature, and the use
of the same faculties, should also be equal one
amongst another without subordination or
subjection” (§ 4). This assertion reinforces the
notion that no individual is inherently superior
to another, establishing a moral basis for
equality that challenges hierarchical structures
prevalent in Locke's time. However, Locke is
careful to delineate the boundaries of this
freedom. He notes, “but though this be a state
of liberty, yet it is not a state of license: though
the man in that state has an uncontrollable
liberty to dispose of his person or possessions,
yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so
much as any creature in his possession, but
where some nobler use than its bare
preservation calls for it” (§ 5). This introduces
the notion of responsible liberty; while
individuals are free, their actions must align
with the law of nature—a moral framework that
governs human behaviour. This law obligates
everyone to respect the rights of others,
ensuring that freedom does not devolve into
chaos .
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
For Locke, in the state of nature where there are
no laws or authority, men are guided by reason.
"The state of nature has a law of nature to
govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,
which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will
but consult it, that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in
his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (§ 6).
Ultimately, Locke concludes that all men
remain in their natural state until they consent
to form a political society. He writes, “but I
moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in
that state, and remain so, till by their own
consents they make themselves members of
some politic society” (§ 15). This consent is
foundational to Locke’s political philosophy; it
signifies that legitimate government arises
from the collective agreement of individuals
who seek to protect their natural rights through
established laws and institutions, excluding
coercion or divine right.
Then Locke turns to talk about the transition
from the state of nature to organized political
societies. Central to Locke's argument is the
idea that individuals possess natural rights and
that the formation of a political society is
essential for the protection and preservation of
these rights. Locke asserts that "no political
society can be, nor subsist, without having in
itself the power to preserve the property, and in
order thereunto, punish the offences of all those
of that society; there, and there only is political
society, where every one of the members hath
quitted this natural power, resigned it up into
the hands of the community in all cases that
exclude him not from appealing for protection
to the law established by it” (Locke, 2017, para.
§ 87). Locke also argues that the transition to
civil society occurs when individuals
collectively agree to form a government that
can enact laws and impose penalties for
transgressions. He explains, “And thus the
common-wealth comes by a power to set down
what punishment belongs to the several
transgressions which they think worthy of it, . .
. and all this for the preservation of the property
of all the members of that society, as far as is
possible” (§ 88). Here, Locke emphasizes that
the primary purpose of government is to protect
property and ensure justice, thus legitimizing
its authority. However, Locke strongly asserts
that any legitimate political authority must arise
from the consent of the governed. He asserts,
“MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all
free, equal, and independent, no one can be put
out of this estate, and subjected to the political
power of another, without his own consent” (§
95). This foundational principle establishes that
the transition from a state of nature to civil
society is contingent upon mutual agreement
among individuals .
Thus, the crux of Locke's political philosophy
is that the inception of any political society is
rooted in the consent of its members. He
asserts, “and thus that, which begins and
actually constitutes any political society, is
nothing but the consent of any number of
freemen capable of a majority to unite and
incorporate into such a society” (§ 99). This
perspective challenges any form of government
that does not derive its legitimacy from the
explicit consent of its citizens. The concept of
forming a political society through collective
agreement challenges existing hierarchies and
promotes the idea of popular sovereignty,
where the legitimacy of government comes
from the people rather than divine right or
hereditary rule. These ideas signify a shift from
individualistic justice to a collective legal
framework, emphasizing that legitimate
political authority arises from the consent of
individuals who agree to abide by common
laws for mutual protection. It challenges the
notion of arbitrary rule and supports the idea of
a social contract .
Moreover, Locke emphasizes that this consent
is not merely a formality but a fundamental
requirement for establishing lawful
governance. He states, “that the beginning of
politic society depends upon the consent of the
individuals, to join into, and make one society;
who, when they are thus incorporated, might set
up what form of government they thought fit”
(Locke, 2017, para. § 100). This flexibility
allows communities to choose governance
structures that best serve their needs while
remaining anchored in the consent of the
majority. Once individuals consent to form a
community, they create a political body
governed by the will of the majority. Locke
states, "when any number of men have so
consented to make one community or
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
government, they are thereby presently
incorporated, and make one body politic,
wherein the majority have a right to act and
conclude the rest” (§ 95). This incorporation is
essential for establishing a cohesive society
where decisions are made collectively rather
than individually. This reinforces the idea of
popular sovereignty, where the authority of the
government is derived from the consent of the
governed. It undermines autocratic rule and
supports the notion that political legitimacy
comes from collective agreement rather than
coercion .
Finally, Locke addresses the significance of
individual consent concerning the subjection
under governmental laws. He notes, "Every
man being, as has been showed, naturally free,
and nothing being able to put him into
subjection to any earthly power, but only his
own consent; it is to be considered, what shall
be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a
man's consent, to make him subject to the laws
of any government” (§ 119). This statement
reinforces his belief that true political authority
cannot exist without the explicit approval of
those it governs which form the basis of social
contract theory. This is a radical departure from
authoritarian rule towards a more democratic
rule, encouraging accountability in governance
and legitimizing the call for reform or
revolution when governments fail to serve their
people. Still, the ultimate purpose of
individuals entering into a political society is
the preservation of their property. "The great
and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into
commonwealth, and putting themselves under
government, is the preservation of their
property. To which in the state of nature there
are many things wanting §( "124.)
As governments derive their legitimacy from
the explicit consent of the governed, the
governed retain the right to withdraw that
consent, subduing their government to
accountability or dissolution. Locke argues that
legitimate government is founded on the
consent of the governed, and when that consent
is violated, the people have the right to dissolve
their government and establish a new one. He
identifies several scenarios that lead to the
dissolution of government. He asserts, "first,
that when such a single person, or prince, sets
up his own arbitrary will in place of the laws,
which are the will of the society, declared by
the legislative, then the legislative is changed”
(Locke, 2017, para. § 214). This statement
underscores the danger of autocratic rule,
where a ruler prioritizes personal whims over
the collective will of the society. When a prince
or ruler disregards established laws, the very
foundation of governance is undermined,
leading to a shift in authority that justifies
rebellion. Moreover, Locke emphasizes the
importance of legislative assembly and action.
He states, “secondly, When the prince hinders
the legislative from assembling in its due time,
or from acting freely, pursuant to those ends for
which it was constituted” (§ 215). The
obstruction of legislative processes by rulers
not only disrupts governance but also betrays
the trust placed in them to act for the public
good. Such actions diminish the legitimacy of
authority and empower citizens to reclaim their
rights. Locke further elaborates on electoral
integrity, noting that “thirdly, When, by the
arbitrary power of the prince, the electors, or
ways of election, are altered, without the
consent, and contrary to the common interest of
the people” (§ 216). The manipulation of
electoral processes is a direct assault on
democracy and representation. When rulers
alter how representatives are chosen without
public consent, they effectively nullify the
people's voice and right to self-governance.
Another critical point Locke makes is regarding
foreign subjugation: “Fourthly, The delivery
also of the people into the subjection of a
foreign power, either by the prince, or by the
legislative, is certainly a change of the
legislative, and so a dissolution of the
government: for the end why people entered
into society being to be preserved one entire,
free, independent society, to be governed by its
own laws; this is lost, whenever they are given
up into the power of another” (§ 217). This
assertion highlights a fundamental principle of
sovereignty; any government that compromises
its autonomy by submitting to foreign rule has
betrayed its citizens' trust and purpose .
Locke also addresses instances where
governmental authority acts contrary to its
foundational trust: “There is, therefore,
secondly, another way whereby governments
are dissolved, and that is, when the legislative,
or the prince, either of them, act contrary to
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
their trust. First, the legislative acts against the
trust reposed in them, when they endeavour to
invade the property of the subject and to make
themselves, or any part of the community,
masters, or arbitrary disposers of the lives,
liberties, or fortunes of the people” (§ 221).
Here, Locke emphasizes that any attempt by
government officials to infringe upon
individual rights—be it life, liberty, or
property—constitutes a breach of trust that
justifies dissolution. When such violations
occur, Locke argues that “In these and the like
cases, when the government is dissolved, the
people are at liberty to provide for themselves,
by erecting a new legislative, differing from the
other, by the change of persons, or form, or
both, as they shall find it most for their safety
and good” (§ 220). This radical notion
empowers citizens to act against tyranny and
injustice. The authority to establish a new
government reflects Locke's belief in popular
sovereignty and individual rights.
Locke asserts that the legitimacy of
government is derived from the consent of the
governed, and he outlines the conditions under
which this consent can be revoked. Central to
his argument is the idea that when governments
fail to protect the rights of their citizens,
particularly their property, they forfeit their
authority and can be justly opposed. Therefore,
Locke asserts that the primary purpose of
government is to safeguard the property and
rights of individuals. He states, “whenever the
legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy
the property of the people, or to reduce them to
slavery under arbitrary power, they put
themselves into a state of war with the people,
who are thereupon absolved from any farther
obedience” (§ 222). This declaration
underscores Locke’s belief that the protection
of property is not just a political obligation but
a moral imperative. When legislators overstep
their bounds and infringe upon the rights of the
people, they effectively declare war on them,
thus justifying resistance and revolution.
Moreover, Locke emphasizes that any breach
of trust by the legislative body—whether
through ambition, fear, folly, or corruption—
results in a forfeiture of power. He writes,
“whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall
transgress this fundamental rule of society; and
either by ambition, fear, folly or corruption,
endeavour to grasp themselves, or put into the
hands of any other, an absolute power over the
lives, liberties, and estates of the people; by this
breach of trust, they forfeit the power the
people had put into their hands for quite
contrary ends” (Locke, 2017, para. § 222). This
passage illustrates Locke’s view that
government is a fiduciary relationship; those in
power must act in accordance with the interests
of those they govern. When this trust is broken,
it is not only the right but also the duty of the
people to reclaim their liberty. Locke further
clarifies what happens when government fails
its fundamental purpose: “What power they
ought to have in the society, who thus employ
it contrary to the trust went along with it in its
first institution, is easy to determine; and one
cannot but see, that he, who has once attempted
any such thing as this, cannot any longer be
trusted” (§ 222). This statement reinforces the
notion that once a ruler abuses their power, they
lose their legitimacy and cannot expect
continued obedience from the populace. Thus,
Locke warns that when people are subjected to
arbitrary power and become miserable under
such conditions, they seek to relieve themselves
of their burdens. He notes, “for when the people
are made miserable, and find themselves
exposed to the ill usage of arbitrary power...the
same happens. The people generally ill-
treated...can be ready upon any occasion to ease
themselves of a burden that sits heavily upon
them” (§ 224). This observation highlights the
inevitability of resistance in the face of
oppression; when individuals feel their rights
are consistently violated, they seek change.
Locke also discusses the moral implications of
rebellion against a corrupt government, holding
it responsible for the occurrence of rebellion.
He states, “when either the legislative is
changed, or the legislators act contrary to the
end for which they were constituted; those who
are guilty are guilty of rebellion” (§ 227). This
distinction is crucial: while rebellion may be
deemed unlawful in some contexts, it becomes
a justified response when a government acts
against its foundational purpose—namely, to
protect the rights and properties of its citizens .
In conclusion, John Locke's Second Treatise of
Government presents a compelling framework
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
for understanding the foundations of political
authority and the rights of individuals within
society. His emphasis on natural rights—life,
liberty, and property—establishes a moral basis
for governance, asserting that these rights are
inherent and cannot be surrendered. The
concept of the social contract further reinforces
this idea, as Locke argues that legitimate
government derives its authority from the
consent of the governed. This consent is not a
one-time event but an ongoing agreement that
can be revoked if the government fails to
uphold its responsibilities. Ultimately, Locke’s
ideas about natural rights, consent, and the right
to revolution advocate for a government that is
accountable to its citizens. They provide a
philosophical foundation for democratic
principles and underscore the importance of
protecting individual freedoms against tyranny.
In this light, Locke’s treatise remains a vital
reference in discussions about justice,
governance, and the ethical responsibilities of
both rulers and the ruled .
The Impact of Locke’s Philosophy on the
Development of Political Theory & Practice
John Locke (1632-1704) is an influential
English philosopher and physician, often
regarded as one of the most important thinkers
of the Enlightenment. John Locke's Two
Treatises of Government has had a profound
and enduring impact on the development of
modern political theory, particularly in the
context of revolutions, constitutions, human
rights, and the establishment of liberal
democracies. It also continues to shape
contemporary political discourse. By refuting
Sir Robert Filmer's arguments for the divine
right of kings, Locke established a new
paradigm for understanding political authority.
This shift away from monarchic absolutism
towards a more egalitarian view of governance
marked a significant transformation in political
thought. His ideas, particularly those
concerning natural rights, the social contract,
and the right of revolution, had a major impact
on the development of modern liberal
democracies and laid the groundwork for later
revolutions, such as the American and French
Revolutions, which were inspired by Locke's
justification for revolution when a government
fails to uphold its responsibilities and the
legitimacy of resisting and overthrowing
oppressive governments .
Kasper (2005) highlights the significance of
Locke’s ideas in shaping the Glorious
Revolution. He asserts that “his long-held
ideas, when they were published in essays and
pamphlets, gave philosophical depth to the
Glorious Revolution and a cohesive intellectual
base to constitutional, limited government,
parliamentary representation and the market
economy” (2). This intellectual foundation not
only influenced British governance but also
made its way across the Atlantic, where Locke's
principles were integral to the American
struggle for independence. The American
Founding Fathers were particularly influenced
by Locke's theories on governance and
individual rights. O'Toole (2012) notes that
“the American Founding Fathers, including
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson,
inherited Locke’s perspective on [the right of
the revolution] when arguing for the
independence of the colonies” (3). This
inheritance is evident in the Declaration of
Independence, which embodies Locke's
principles by asserting that “when a long train
of abuses” occurs, it is the right of the people to
alter or abolish their government. O'Toole
(2012) further emphasizes that “The
Declaration of Independence, a clear, concise
document explicitly outlining the right of
revolution, resonates very much with Locke’s
political theory” (5). Locke’s influence extends
beyond mere rhetoric; it is deeply embedded in
the structure of American government. The Bill
of Rights reflects a desire to limit governmental
power and protect individual liberties. O'Toole
(2012) points out that the Fourth Amendment
explicitly safeguards “the right of the people to
be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures” (106). This emphasis on privacy and
security illustrates Locke's belief in the
importance of protecting individual rights
against potential governmental overreach .
Moreover, O'Toole (2012) argues that “The
Federalist Papers, The Declaration of
Independence, and The Bill of Rights all
demonstrate a Hobbesian and Lockean
perspective on the role of the sovereign and the
right of revolution” (107). The Federalist
Papers, particularly those authored by
Revolution in John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
Madison, illuminate how the Founding Fathers
understood the need for limitations on
governmental power. As O'Toole articulates,
“the sovereign, as a man, cannot be fully
trusted, and thus certain limitations must be
installed to help ensure that the government
does not become tyrannical” (107). This notion
of checks and balances reflects Locke’s
understanding of human nature and
governance. Kasper also notes that Locke's
classical liberal thought remains relevant today.
He states that “in our day, the core pillars of
Locke's classical liberal thought – equality
before the law, constitutional, small
government, and free markets built on secure
property – are increasingly embraced by young
third-world observers” (O'Toole, 2012, p. 4).
This ongoing relevance underscores Locke's
enduring legacy in promoting individual
freedom and democratic governance across the
globe.
In conclusion, John Locke's political
philosophy not only revolutionized political
thought in his time but has had a lasting impact
on political theory and practice, constituting a
solid foundation for modern democratic
principles. His ideas provided a philosophical
foundation for revolutions, shaped
constitutions, and provided a framework for
understanding the relationship between
individuals and their governments. As seen in
foundational American documents like the
Declaration of Independence and the Bill of
Rights, Locke’s principles remain vital in
understanding the relationship between citizens
and their government. His assertion that
individuals have the right to life, liberty, and
property continues to resonate as a fundamental
tenet of democratic societies worldwide .
Conclusion
John Locke’s the Two Treatises of Government
represents a significant shift in political
thought, as it challenges the prevailing notions
of divine right and absolute monarchy and
offers a compelling justification for limited
government, individual rights, and popular
sovereignty. The doctrine of divine right asserts
that monarchs derive their authority directly
from God. Kings were seen as God's
representatives on earth, and their power was
absolute and unquestionable. Any challenge to
their authority was considered a challenge to
God's will. In contrast, Locke argued that
individuals possess natural rights, including
life, liberty, and property. These rights are
inherent to all humans and cannot be bestowed
or taken away by any earthly power. To protect
these rights, individuals form a social contract,
voluntarily ceding some of their rights to a
government. However, this government is not
divinely ordained; it is a creation of the people
themselves. By transferring the legitimacy of
government from the divine right (God) to the
consent of the governed, Locke is explicitly
empowering the people to shape their own
political governance and hold their leaders
accountable, laying the groundwork for
revolution when the government becomes
tyrannical or fails to fulfill its obligations and
violates the rights of its citizens. This
revolutionary shift in political thought marked
a departure from traditional, monarchical
authority and paved the way for modern
democratic principles .
Locke's explicit justification for revolution was
a radical departure from the traditional divine
right of kings. It provided a powerful
theoretical framework for challenging
oppressive regimes and inspired revolutionary
movements around the world. Thus, Locke’s
justification for revolution is not merely
practical; it is also moral. He believes that
individuals have a moral obligation to protect
their rights and those of others. He argues that
if a government fails to fulfill its obligations
and violates the rights of its citizens, the people
have a right to revolt and establish a new
government. If peaceful means of redress fail,
then revolution becomes a necessary act of self-
defense against tyranny. However, it's
important to note that Locke’s justification for
revolution is conditional. He emphasizes the
importance of prudence and moderation in
resorting to revolution. He recognizes that
revolution can be a dangerous and disruptive
process, and it should only be undertaken as a
last resort. Thus, he lays three main conditions
for a legitimate revolution. First, the
government must become tyrannical, abusing
its power and violating the people's rights.
Second, the government must fail to protect the
Revolutionin John Locke’s Philosophy: The Two Treatises of Government
Rashid Mohammed Ali Al-Hajin
JHS
41
people's natural rights to life, liberty, and
property. Third, revolution should only be
considered as a last resort, when all other
avenues for redress have been exhausted .
Recommendations for Future Studies
As this research paper has explored the intricate
relationship between John Locke's philosophy
and the foundational principles of modern
democratic thought, it is essential to recognize
the vast landscape of inquiry that remains.
While the analysis of The Two Treatises of
Government has illuminated key aspects of
Locke's ideas on natural rights and the social
contract, further exploration is warranted to
deepen our understanding of their implications
in contemporary contexts. Thus, the researcher
recommends the following topics for future
scholars to contribute to a more nuanced
interpretation of Locke's work and its enduring
relevance in today's democratic discourse :
1 .Investigate the ideas of other philosophers of
the time, such as Hobbes and Rousseau, to
highlight how Locke's views differed and
contributed to the evolution of political
thought .
2 .Discuss the relevance of Locke’s ideas in
today’s political discourse, particularly in
debates about individual rights, government
accountability, and civil liberties.
3 .Examine critiques of Locke’s philosophy,
including arguments about its limitations or
contradictions. Consider perspectives from
feminist theory, Marxist theory, and post-
colonial critiques regarding natural rights
and social contracts .
4 .Explore how Locke’s ideas have been
adapted or challenged in various political
contexts around the world, including non-
Western societies .
5 .Explore the intersection of Islamic
Allegiance (Bay’ah) and John Locke’s
Social Contract Theory: A Comparative
Analysis .
6 .Explore how Locke's social contract differs
from Hobbes' and how it justifies revolution
and advocates for limited government .
References
[1] Burgess, G. (1992). The divine right of kings
reconsidered. The English Historical Review,
107(425), 837-861 .
[2] Cole, R. (1968). Locke. In International
encyclopedia of social sciences. New York.
Ebenstein, W., Ebenstein, A. O. (1991). Locke.
In Great political thinkers: Plato to the present
(pp. 425-434). Fort Worth .
[3] Dienstag, J. F. (1996). Between History and
Nature: Social Contract Theory in Locke and
the Founders. The Journal of Politics,58(4),
985-1009 .
[4] Felder, D. W. (1998). The call for a world
constitutional convention: An application of
John Locke's theory of revolution. In The
Paideia Archive: Twentieth World Congress of
Philosophy (Vol. 41 pp. 63-67).
[5] Foster, H. D. (1927). International Calvinism
through Locke and the revolution of 1688. The
American Historical Review, 32 (3), 475-499 .
[6] Kasper, W. (2005). John Locke, philosopher of
freedom, in memoriam. Eleuteria, 3 .
[7] Kelly, P. (2022). Locke: Liberalism and the
externalization of conflict. In Conflict, war and
revolution: The problem of politics in
international political thought (pp. 181-212).
London: LSE Press.
https://doi.org/10.31389/lsepress.cwr.f
[8] Locke, J. (2017). The complete works of John
Locke (Version 1). Delphi Classics. The two
treatises of government: Of government .
[9] Locke, J. (2017). The complete works of John
Locke (Version 1). Delphi Classics. The two
treatises of government: Of civil government .
[10] O'Toole, J. W. (2012). The right of revolution:
An analysis of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes'
social contract theories. LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing .
[11] Rahman, P. N. A. (2024). Unveiling the
Divine Tapestry: A Comparative Analysis of
the Devarāja Cult and the European Divine-
Right Theory. Journal of Ecohumanism, 3(6),
608-616 .
[12] Rogers, G. A.J. (2024, October 24). John
Locke. Encyclopedia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-
Locke
[13] Yahaya, J. U. (2020). John Locke's political
philosophy and its relevance to the sustenance of
peace and good governance in Nigeria.
