PROMPT: Discuss John Lockes conception of the so-called social contract and of legitimate forms of government as a critical response to the earlier view about divine rights of kings. How does Mary Astells critique of the marriage contract extend Lockes view of legitimate political power to the domestic sphere of marital relations and the power structure therein? Does Astells condemnation of the marriage contract have any continued relevance today in your view, and why or why not?
1.Identify the question (1 – 8) you are addressing on the first page. Make sure you address the question as it is formulated stay on the topic.
2.The final paper is graded for textual explication, textual engagement, and written expression as well as for philosophical depth and personal reflection (see definitions below). That means that you are expected not only to present the philosophers views in a clear, lively and well-written manner, but also to bring your reflection and experience to bear on the readings and problems under discussion.
3.Your paper should be double spaced, font size 12, 6-8 pages long. Please do not separate paragraphs by blank spaces to create additional space.
Use minimal to no quotes, although I will attach the needed readings in PDF’s
I wrote one paragraph to get a sense for my style of writing but there needs to be more analysis involved:
The divine right of kings is a political doctrine asserting that a monarch acquired their power directly from God. This defense of monarchical absoluteism allows for kings to avoid being held accountable for their actions by society institutions such as courts or parliment, which typically had authority over the general population. Such a theory then necessitates that opposing the kings will is opposing Gods will. Lockes rejection of this concept was justified by his insistence for legitimate forms of government, derived from the idea of the natural rights of the people. He believed it was the purpose of the government to protect these rights, being life, property, and liberty; and if the people believed the government failed to do so, there was validation in their decision to form a rebellion. Locke thought that citizens should be able to select their leaders and have the freedom to control their own happiness, therefore, he disagreed with the divine birth right of rulers. This however, did not mean there should be a lack of political authority all together. Instead, Locke argues for a so-called social contract in which citizens consent to be ruled by the majority, creating an organized society in which those in a state of nature must give up some of their rights to their government in order for a peaceful and well-functioning life.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]