Extended Essays 2021

when the state is illegitimate, the people are morally able to dissent against it. Both

premises are sound and effective in outlining the conditions for dissent. Thereby, the

argument is valid and cogent.

Robert Filmer, absolutist philosopher, establishes through his work Patriarcha (1680)

an opposition to Locke on the right to rebellion. Filmer’s strong argument for de facto

political power and the irrelevance of moral basis for allegiance to one’s government

presents a stark contrast to Locke. This is illustrated within the following premises:

1. The sovereign power of kings is absolute and unlimited over their subjects.

2. This power is assumed naturally.

Though the first premise mirrors that of Hobbes, Filmer identifies a more stringent

argument for the patriarchal government. The differing point being the naturalness of

the power mirroring that of the preconceived familial relationship. It is essential for

absolute political power to operate above the law as only following this condition can

government make law. Filmer claims there is an impossibility for there to be law

without natural absolute power. As a result, society must not rebel against democratic

leadership as it violates the patriarchy of government and is unable to fulfil the

conditions of absolute and natural power.

As an anti-absolutist, Philip Hunton provides a contrasting argument to that of Filmer.

Within his, A Treatise of Monarchy (1680), Hunton voices support for armed dissent

and the Parliamentarian resistance theories of the time. Primarily through means of

theological analysis, Hunton finds that there is no spiritual outline for governmental

regimes, as such there is no claim for a monarchy that cannot be applied to other

systems. This weakens Filmer’s argument for the natural acquisition of power,

13