Socratic Seminar Notes

I.A.
Scientific Revolution
A time of questioning and change
 Causes of the Revolution

► Textbook Read pg 128-top of 129. Online pg. 1 and top of 2

► Name 2 developments that encouraged new ways of
thinking during the Scientific Revolution?
 Scientific Breakthroughs

► Read 129-top of 130 / Online rest of pg. 2- Galileo’s

Discover on pg. 3
► Read the rest of 130 / Online rest of pg. 3 and pg. 4
► Why did the Catholic Church order Galileo to abandon his
work?
► Read 131 (stop at Women’s contribution) / pg. 5 (stop at
Women’s Contribution)
► Explain one breakthrough in Medicine or Chemistry.
 Women’s Contributions

► Read 131-top of 132 / Online pg. 5 and 6 (stop at

Philosophy and Reason)
► What did Cavendish think about the relationship between
humans and science?
► What challenges do you think Cavendish faced in her life
and career as a scientist?
 Philosophy and Reason

► Read 132 Online pg. 6 and 7 (Descartes and Rationalism)

► Rene Descartes came up with a system of thought, based

on the belief that reason is the chief source of knowledge
known as?

Explain this system?

 Scientific Method

► Look at page 133 of the textbook / Examine the 3rd icon

down on the right on pg. 7

► When using the scientific method what do scientists do

when the results of their experiments disagree with their
proposed explanation?
► How does the scientific method help to arrive at the true
explanation of a natural event?
Reading Progress Check
Page 25/Chapter 2, Lesson 1, Pages 3 and 4
● Why might Machiavelli have argued that political activity should not be restricted by moral principles?
○ Machiavelli may have argued that it being restricted to (Christian) moral principles could prevent understanding
of others and the situation/social awareness and use of that as aid in political activity. Not restricting it to moral
principles could prove useful when what someone has to do does not fit into those principles, but is beneficial, as
it would not hold them back. It might prevent them from thinking outside of the box.
■ Machiavelli was a political philosopher that was giving political advice, basing it on what he thinks of
people, that they are ungrateful, false, cowardly, and motivated by self-interest.
○ He thinks that leaders in a political context should do what is best for their people, even if it’s not a moral/ethical
thing to do.
■ He wrote this in his book called “The Prince,” about how to get and keep political power.
Enlightenment Thinkers
Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Baron de
Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Cesare Beccaria
 Thomas Hobbes
“35.3 - Absolute Rule by Kings
Wrote the book Leviathan.”

- Thomas Hobbes was one of the first to use the methods of

the Scientific Revolution, and apply it to political problems.
Hobbes was an English philosopher born in 1588, attempted
to provide a rational basis for unlimited power of kings by
writing his view of humans and best form of government in
his book, "Leviathan." He saw human beings as cruel and
greedy, with governments being formed on the basis of
protecting society from this greedy and selfishness, thinking a
ruler with unlimited authority could accomplish this protection
in an orderly manner.
- He studied mathematics and science, and history and
government, influencing him to look at the issues within
society from a scientific approach. In his book, "Leviathan,"
he attempted to reason that humans were naturally cruel,
self-serving, and greedy. That they, because of this, should
not be trusted to make decisions for society together, and that
only a ruler with absolute power could maintain a
well-functioning society.
 John Locke
“35.4 - Natural Rights
Wrote, Two Treatises of Government.”

- An English philosopher who did not believe in absolute power

of kings, and did approve of Parliament having passed the
English Bill of Rights. He wrote of this in his book Two
Treatises of Government, which contained his theory on the
true basis of government: That it was a social contract,
agreed upon among people with freedom, with the purpose of
protecting people's natural rights (Including the right to life,
liberty, and property), and that the government was given the
authority to make and enforce laws in exchange for that
protection. Locke believed that the government's power had a
basis on the consent of the people; that the government
could be overthrown if they failed to properly govern or
respect people's rights.
Baron de Montesquieu
“35. 5 - Separation of Powers
Wrote Persian Letters and Spirit of the Laws.”

- Montesquieu was a French noble who's published "The Spirit

of the Laws" in 1748. In it, he attempted to find natural laws
that govern the relationships of humans and proposed that
the England's government functioned through a separation of
powers in which the judicial, executive, and legislative powers
could limit each other through checks and balances,
preventing some one or group gaining too much power and
leading into despotism.
- ‘Parliament makes laws, king enforces laws, courts interpret
laws.’
 Voltaire
“35.6 - Religious Tolerance and Free Speech
Wrote a novel called, Candide.”

- Voltaire was a Parisian and the "greatest figure of the

Enlightenment," known mostly from his criticisms of
Christianity and his challenging of the Church. He also
strongly believed in religious tolerance, and was fighting
against the religious intolerance in France. He believed that
God was like a clockmaker, having created the universe (a
clock) and had it run without his interference, setting it in
motion and "allowing it to run according to its own natural
laws."
 Cesare Beccaria
“35.7 – The Rights of the Accused
Wrote a book called On Crime and Punishment.”

- Cesare Beccaria was an Italian born in 1738, and stressed

the rights and fair treatment of those accused. Beccaria once
began to study the justice system, upset with the torture and
trial practices that were common. In his book, "On Crimes
and Punishments," he argued against these, an example
being that punishments did not have to be torturous as laws
existed to provide security and order and that trials should be
fair.
Chapter 8, Lesson 2/134-139 Questions
How did Enlightenment thinkers use the ideas of
the Scientific Revolution?

Enlightenment thinkers used the ideas of the Scientific Revolution in the way, for
example, Hobbes did. Hobbes observed human beings to get a better
understanding of particular political issues and questions and did so by taking a
scientific approach filled with reason.
What role did philosophers play in the
Enlightenment?

Philosophers during the Enlightenment applied rationalism and reason to their

surroundings, world, and their actions/what and how they observed [things]. This
included religion and politics.
How did Enlightenment ideas influence society
and culture?

Enlightenment ideas influenced the morals and thinking of society by introducing

ideas of ways of thinking to them that would change motives, ideals, or would alter
the perspective of members if not much of society.
Ideas of the Enlightenment
➤ Read Page 134 top of 135
➤ What did Locke believe about how people
were born?
➤ What burden does this place on society?
➤ What effect did Locke’s ideas have on
other philosophers

Ideas of the Philosophes

➤ How did Montesquieu’s ideas limit any
part of the government from becoming
too powerful?
➤ What did it mean that there was religious
intolerance in France?
➤ What was Voltaire’s belief about God?

Role of Philosophy
➤ Read Page 136 New Social Sciences
➤ What role did Adam Smith think
government should fulfill in society?
➤ Do you agree with Adam Smith’s view?
Why or Why not?

New Social Sciences

➤ Read page 137 (Social Contract)
➤ What is a social contract?
➤ Do you agree this is the best way to
govern? Why or why not?

Spread of Ideas
➤ Read page 137 (Women’s Rights)
➤ Why do some consider Mary
Wollstonecraft the founder of the
Women’s movement ?
➤ Provide support for your claim with a
passage from the text.

Women’s Rights
 ➤ Read pages 138-139 (Begin at Religion)
➤ In what area; Religion, the Arts or The
role of women do you feel the
enlightenment had the largest impact?
➤ Provide support for your claim

Enlightenment and Religion/Art and Music

➤ How did the Scientific Revolution impact
religious, political, and cultural institutions by
challenging how people viewed the world?

➤ How did Enlightenment ideas challenge

practices related to religious authority, absolute
rule and mercantilism?

Final Thoughts on the Enlightenment

DBQ Enlightenment Thinkers
John Locke

John Locke was a famous English Enlightenment philosopher that lived from 1632-1704. The following is an excerpt from his Second Treatise on Government. In it, Locke
expresses his views on politics and government.

“All men are naturally born in a state of perfect freedom, equal and independent to act how they want to. The state of nature has a law that governs it. This law of nature obliges
(requires) that no one should harm another in his natural rights to life, liberty, and property (possessions).

To maintain this natural state of freedom, equality, and independence, men consent (agree) to join and unite into a community for comfortable, peaceful living, and a greater
security against any others that might desire to take away or harm their natural rights. When every individual in a community has consented (agreed) to join together, they have
made that community a government.

Because men consent (agree) to enter into society to preserve their natural rights to life, liberty, and property, whenever the government endeavors (attempts) to take away or
destroy the life, liberty, or property of the people, the government puts itself in a state of war with the people and the people are released from any further obedience to the
government (they no longer have to obey the government).

Source: John Locke, “The Second Treatise of Government” published 1689

John Locke
1. Identify: According to John Locke, what are the “natural rights” of all men?
a. According to John Locke, the “natural rights” of all men are of liberty, life, and property.

2. Explain: According to John Locke, why do people unite to form communities and governments? When should people disobey or rebel against the government?
a. People (according to John Locke) unite to form governments and communities as a social contract to protect their natural rights, that they
should/can go against it if the government fails to properly govern or respect the people’s rights.

3. Analyze: What type of government do you think John Locke would want? Explain, and BE SPECIFIC
a. I think John Locke would want a democracy in which the people aim to protect their rights, rather than gain advantages over others.
4. Analyze: In what ways do you think the ideas expressed by John Locke influenced Western political thought?
a. I think that the ideas of natural rights and a government’s foundation expressed by John Locke influenced the Constitution’s preamble and part of the
main themes/ideas presented.
Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes was one of the first English Enlightenment philosophers. He believed in a strong government based on reason. The following is an excerpt from his most
famous work The Leviathan.

“Nature has made men so equal in with regards to the body and mind that the difference from man to another man is not so considerable (not very much).

From this equality of ability comes an equality of hope in attaining of our goals and desires. If any two men desire the same thing which they cannot both enjoy, they
compete and become enemies. When this happens, and if there is no common power to keep them all in awe (keep them in check), they will engage (participate) in a
condition which is called war.

In such condition (war) there is no place for business or prosperity (success) because war makes all things uncertain. As a result of this, culture goes away and knowledge is
lost. There are no arts, no letters, and no society in times of war. Worst of all, there is continual fear and danger of violent death. The life of man is solitary (lonely), poor,
nasty, brutish, and short.
In order to live a more contented (happy) life and escape that miserable condition of war, men must give up their freedom to the State (government). The power of the State
must be absolute (complete, total) in order to keep men in awe, and tie them by fear of punishment to the performance of their covenants (moral agreements) with one
another.
Source: Thomas Hobbes, “The Leviathan,” published in 1651
Thomas Hobbes
1. Identify: According to Thomas Hobbes, why do men become enemies?
a. Thomas Hobbes thinks men become enemies from both wanting (to have) something without being able to both do so.
2. Identify: According to Thomas Hobbes, why is war such a bad thing?
a. According to Thomas Hobbes, war is a bad thing because it causes uncertainty, with culture, knowledge, and the absence of fear of danger and
violent death being lost.
3. Justify: According to Thomas Hobbes, what do men have to do in order to avoid war? Do you agree with Hobbes? Explain.
a. Hobbes thought men had to give up their rights and freedoms to the state (government), letting go of the actions that would come of that, in order
to avoid war.
b. I don’t agree with Hobbes because, with a monarchy or head in charge, giving all the power to one singular group could be worse as that one
person or those people, based on what Hobbes thinks of human beings,
4. Analyze: What type of government do you think Thomas Hobbes would want? Explain, and BE SPECIFIC.
a. A monarchy in which one ruler controls the nation to prevent the risks of war and violence among the people, as that fits with what Hobbes thinks
of people.
Charles de Montesquieu

Charles de Montesquieu was an important French philosopher during the Enlightenment. The following is an excerpt from “The Spirit of Laws,” his best known work. In it, he explains his
theory of separation of powers and checks and balances.

In every government there are three kinds of power. These are the legislative, the executive, and the judicial powers.

The power of the first (legislative) is to create laws and to amend (change) those that have been already created. The power of the second (executive) is to maintain the public security by
enforcing (carrying out) the laws. The power of the third (judicial) is to punish criminals and settle the disputes that arise between individuals.

There would be no freedom if the same man or the same group of men controlled those three powers at once. This man or group of men would have complete control over all parts of the
law. They could create tyrannical laws or enforce them like a tyrant. They could plunder (loot) the country by their general determinations (choices); and could ruin any private citizen by
their particular decisions.

This is why many of the kings and princes of Europe, whose goal has been to attain absolute power, have tried to unite in themselves all the branches of government.”

Source: Charles de Montesquieu, “The Spirit of Laws,” written in 1777

Charles de Montesquieu
1. Explain: According to Montesquieu, what are the three kinds of power in every government? What does each one of these powers do?
a. Those three kinds, according to Montesquieu, in every government are the power to make laws (legislate/legislative), the power to enforce them
(execute/executive), and the power to judge/interpret those laws (judicial power).

2. Explain: According to Montesquieu, what happens when one group or individual controls all three of these powers? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Explain.
a. Despotism is what would happen, according to Montesquieu, and this is, to an extent, a bad thing as that section could use the power as they see fit, which could
be the opposite of beneficial to that society.

3. Analyze: What type of government do you think Montesquieu would want? Explain, and BE SPECIFICcreating
a. I think Montesquieu would want a government that uses his idea of checks and balances among groups that each control only one different one out of making
laws, interpreting laws, and executing them.

4. Analyze: In what ways do you think the ideas expressed by Montesquieu influenced Western political thought?
a. The separation of powers and checks and balances were ideas expressed by Montesquieu that our government currently, influenced by them.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Rousseau was a French philosopher and author during the Enlightenment. He saw current governments as corrupt. The following is an excerpt from his most
famous work, The Social Contract, where he talks about his idea for government.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. This is because Man has given up his freedom to many masters (kings) in order to preserve his life. This
primitive condition can subsist (continue) no longer. The problem now is to find a form of government which will defend and protect the life and goods of
each member while still allowing each member to obey himself alone and thus remain as free as before.
The Social Contract provides the solution to this fundamental (important) problem. The masses (all people) must unite together. This union of all people
together is called the general will. Each person must put himself and all his power under the common control of the general will and must obey whatever the
general will decides. Each member has the same power and is thus an equally important part of the whole.
Through this Social Contract, man maintains as many of the freedoms he received from nature as possible. Each man, in giving his freedom to all, gives his
freedom to no one. This is because there is no one over whom he does not acquire the same power as he has given (each person gives their freedom to the
general will, but they also become part of the general will and have the same power as everyone else).
Source: Jean-Jacque Rousseau, “The Social Contract,” written in 1762
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
1. Explain: What does Rousseau mean when he says “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”? Explain.
a. People are born free, but with government systems like monarchies, they have to give up some freedoms in a way to save themself. The
government has power and control over them and their lives.
2. Summarize: According to Rousseau, how does a government created by the Social Contract work?
a. A government created by this would have all of the community unite and express their ideas, the overall idea being the general will, of
which all people would have to follow and go by as they put their faith and freedom in the general will for how they’d be governed.
This would make it very likely for many freedoms to be present. As each person’s input is included, they all have/share the power
without a group or person having [more] power over the other.
3. Explain: According to Rousseau, how does a man keep his freedom under a government created by the Social Contract?
a. According to them, they keep their freedom under such a government by the of all, them included. This would lead to a lack of the lack
of freedoms and power given to the people to decide this.
4. Analyze: What type of government do you think Rousseau would want? Explain, and BE SPECIFIC
Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft was a self-educated Enlightenment philosopher from England. Her focus on women’s rights and education helped to start 19th century Feminism, a
movement for women’s equality.
“All educated men who have written on the subject of female education and behavior have depicted women as artificial (fake), weak characters and useless members of
society. Even Rousseau declares that a woman should never even for a moment think of herself as independent. She should be nothing but an attractive object of desire,
a sweet companion to man. This is the purpose of a woman. What nonsense!
I have observed more girls than Rousseau and will dare to say that a girl whose spirit has not been dampened (reduced, broken) by society will always be a romp (full of
energy). I am fully persuaded (convinced) that if girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise, and not be confined (kept) in closed rooms till their muscles are weak, and
their powers of thought destroyed, women could do anything. They might even study politics. Educate women like men and the more power women will have. This is the
very thing I aim for. But I do not wish women to have power over men, but over themselves.”

Source: Mary Wollstonecraft, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” 1792

Mary Wollstonecraft
1. Identify: According to Wollstonecraft, how do men of the time period view women? What does Wollstonecraft think about this?
a. They view them as artificial, fake, and weak.. She believes that a girl whose not been changed by society and to society’s will and want, would not
be so, that they’d be lively and could be independent, could do anything.
2. Explain: According to Wollstonecraft, what is holding women back (from studying politics, for example)?
a. Being manipulated by society.
3. Explain: What does Wollstonecraft mean when she says, “I do not wish for them to have power over men, but over themselves”? Explain.
a. I think Wollstonecraft means that women should be, different than what many Enlightenment thinkers believed, allowed to make their own
decisions and run on their autonomy, rather than be controlled or ruled by men, specifically for them being a woman.
4. Analyze: In what ways do you think the ideas expressed by Wollstonecraft influenced Western political thought?
a. I think Wollstonecraft influenced Western political thought regarding the Women’s Rights movement and other acts and such for equality and
freedom, as her ideas led to a large movement in the 1900s centered around the freedom of women from men’s control and exclusion related to
them being women.
Human Nature:
Good or Evil?
As individuals we have choices about
what direction our lives take us.
Ultimately, what we choose is our
decision: however are our decisions
influenced by what we are deep inside?
Is there a common human nature in all of
us? If so, is that nature good or evil?
Throughout history philosophers, great
thinkers, and “everyday” people have
discussed human tendencies. From the early
dynasties of the Chinese to the Enlightenment
thinkers of eighteenth century Europe, this
topic has been hotly debated. For this
assignment we focus in particular on the
Enlightenment thinkers Thomas Hobbes and
John Locke, who proposed different opinions
regarding human nature. Hobbes believed
that humans were naturally selfish, greedy,
and cruel. Locke contended that people were
naturally reasonable and moral.
Now it’s your turn. You are to decide whether
you agree with Hobbes or Locke. Do you
believe people to be naturally good or
naturally bad, and why? Answer the
questions below and give examples when able
to support your answers. You may bring ideas
and examples from history and your own life
experiences to strengthen your argument.
1. Do you agree with Hobbes or Locke? Why?
a. I disagree with both of them in that “humans are,” as I think some are for both. Even then, I believe they aren’t born like
that, but that as they develop, they may be/naturally act in such a way, in a way that feels/comes naturally to them. Some
humans can be cruel, greedy, and/or self-serving, but I disagree that all humans are born/naturally are that way as those
things come from exposure. However, I do think many humans (not all) are born with the desire for immediate result. I
agree with John Locke’s tabula rasa theory in that we are formed through our exposure and experiences gained from society
and our environment. But, “moral” can give off the implication of the general positive thing, and while morals can be of a
culture/group or an individual, they are based on them specifically, not what is typically seen as moral. So I think that, for
all humans, they are not born moral, but may develop a set of morals. I think that it’s incorrect that all humans naturally/are
born being reasonable, as many people are born unable to at all.
b. I disagree with them that humans are naturally either of the ways, in the ways they put it. However, if they meant relativity
to other meanings, then I would still not agree with either, as not all humans are born such. I believe that humans are born
with the ability to adapt, absorb, and experience, as well as be shaped, molded, and influenced by those surroundings; that
they can naturally act this way from that experience, but that it’s not inherent, in the sense of from birth, and it’s not all
humans.
1. Are people naturally cruel, greedy and selfish or are people basically reasonable and moral?
a. People are naturally ‘morally grey,’ for what I think. I don’t believe that people are all naturally that way (cruel, greedy,
and selfish) or the other way (reasonable and moral). However, with the way this questioned presented it as “basically
reasonable and moral,” instead of “naturally reasonable and moral,” I think that, for most people, the potential of reason
and to gain or develop morals are two things that many humans naturally have. From my perspective, humans have their
own potential and possibility for them to do things or have events occur to them, but that we aren’t born naturally doing
that. Human beings do not all have the same abilities, so those things would be different among them. It’s possible for us
to do those things, and it’s possible for us to do them naturally, but it’s not inherently like that, from the beginning, nor is
it that we are like that (rather than that we can be like that). People are neither naturally cruel. greedy, selfish, reasonable,
or/and moral, and have the potential to be, but all are impressionable and able to be eventually formed as a result of their
experiences.
1. If there are not established laws how do you think people would behave?
a. If there were not established laws, I think people would come together and make ones/attempt to establish ones, after an
event(s) occurring to spark them to do so. Or, I think they would have unspoken or/and unestablished laws or rules that
people as a whole, individually agreed upon. The reason I think this is because there are already unestablished rules that
many people follow, and I think that, while it could be seen as a more extreme level than something like not looking
through another’s things without permission, having no established laws could take it to that extreme of offering protection
from one another.
1. Are people born knowing the difference between right and wrong or is it something that is taught to them?
a. People are not born knowing the subjective viewpoint of right and wrong of society but are born knowing the difference
through experience, with few examples. Through life, they’d gain more experience, and overall have the potential for this
to happen. They have their perspective, which could be seen as knowing the difference (in this context), taught to them by
themselves or/and others. The opinions of right and wrong of others aren’t things that people are born with, but that are
taught to them/are exposed to. They could be born knowing the difference in a simple way. but as they develop, their
understanding of right and wrong (with a few exceptions) can continue to grow and change as they gain more experience.
1. Do people generally live in fear?
a. I think that generally, people do have a large amount of fear, but aren’t always thinking of/about it to the point of living in
it. I see a lot of people go about their day ‘normally’ and see something they’re afraid of, and having it fresh in their mind,
living in fear in a way. But, after they forget about it, they go about things the way they did before, or in a similar way. I
think this is similar to the first sentence under this 5a.
1. Are people generally in battle with one another or do they generally wish to cooperate with one another?
a. I think that people are generally in battle with one another, but generally prefer to have cooperation or reap the benefits of
it. Similar to what Hobbes believed, people often are in conflict due to a multiple-person want/need/demand and
supply/the possibility of that using the supply for that want. Again similar to what Hobbes said, there are people that focus
on themselves and their experiences, as opposed to others (as well or instead), and would prefer the safety and possible
comfort from cooperation.
1. Do people fear the ramifications of their actions or are they concerned with how those actions will affect others?
a. I think that it’s neither since “people” represents all people and it isn’t speaking generally. Many seem to be both with fear
of the ramifications of their actions and concerned with how the actions will affect others, the latter often being linked to
how the person or people (would) see them.
1. What would life be like without a government?
a. Without a system of governing, I think life would become a bit chaotic as people wouldn’t have to abide by things and
may focus more on their and others’ needs more without having consequences from governments using Montesquieu’s
separation of powers. Especially from the executive branch. It may seem chaotic, but after a while, the people on the
inside, living it, not the outside, observing it, may find a way or system to make it/things work out.
1. Which view is more realistic, Hobbes or Locke?
a. I think Locke is more realistic because it’s possible for many, with a few exceptions, to naturally have their own morals
and be able to (use/have) reason, with Hobbes saying that everyone is greedy. While both of them, to me, are incorrect, I
think Locke is more realistic as it could be argued that ‘all humans have reason,’ similar to what Wollstonecraft said, and
many go on in their lives, following guidelines, subconsciously or not.
 (Preparation
Questions) Socratic
Seminar:
Enlightenment
1. How did the Scientific Revolution cause the Enlightenment? Was the goal of the Enlightenment a
reasonable one?
a. I think the Scientific Revolution caused the Enlightenment by introducing new technologies
and concepts, which people could use to propose new ideas or be influenced to look at things
from a different perspective.
b. The Scientific Revolution involved the emergence of instruments such as telescopes, as it
says on page 128 of the textbook, which led to more discoveries, as people had a new form of
exploration. With the exploration or analyzation as well that came from the developments of
the Scientific Revolution, people began to have questions about those new things and older
things that conflicted with them. They began to see things differently, approaching with
reason and logic. Referring to the textbook page I mentioned earlier, under Causes of the
Scientific Revolution, the third paragraph, it states, “...the invention of new instruments, such
as the telescope and microscope, made fresh scientific discoveries possible..” This connects
to what I said earlier by both my text and this text saying that the Scientific Revolution led to
new instruments and devices that enable discovery in new areas, or not yet done.
1. What is the best form of government? What makes it the best?
a. I think that it might be a combination of a government using the social contract and
centered around preserving the natural rights of the governed. In theory, a government like
that would have the main goal of serving and properly governing the people; with the
potential of many current governments; a likely possibility.
i. John Locke’s idea, on the Enlightenment Thinkers Reading under 35.4 John Locke:
Natural Rights, was stated as “The purpose of government [being] to protect
people’s natural rights,” and that “The true basis of government…[is] a social
contract…,” the thinking I seem to be trying convey.
b. If a government can successfully focus on this, I think the nation will have more security of
staying together, and that many citizens would be more supportive of the government,
willing to make decisions with consideration for others when using the social contract.
1. What is the worst kind of government? What makes it the worst?
a. I don’t know that there is a “worst kind of government,” but that that government could have points to fail at in the goal of
preserving the people’s rights, and governing properly.
b. Maybe an anarchy or absolute monarchy, as with an absolute monarchy, the ruler (probably) has the freedom to make
decisions, whether or not with the intent of beneficial outcome for their nation.
1. Hobbes and Locke had different viewpoints on what the role of government should have in the lives of their citizens. Whom do
you agree with most? Why?

a. What role do you think the government should play in its citizen’s lives?
i. I think the government should play the role of providing protection, governing, and ‘guidance’ to the citizens.

b. How should individuals participate in government? Should all citizens be allowed to participate?
i. Citizens
1. Which Enlightenment thinker do you think had the biggest impact on how the American government was formed? Give examples
of how they impacted the American government.
1. Some Enlightenment thinkers (Voltaire, Diderot) thought that freedom of speech was important for a society to grow. Do you
agree or disagree with this?

a. Should there ever be limits on freedom of speech?

1. What is the “general will?” How should it factor into how governments work?
a. The general will is the majority agreement or choice of the people, and it is what a social contract-based government
follows. It should factor into how governments work by considering the people’s ideas and input, without immediately
making it so/official, or forcing others to abide by it. Both John Locke and Rousseau
1. Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that people were basically good and that society made them do bad things. Do you agree or
disagree? Give examples from your own experience.
1. Many Enlightened thinkers wanted more education for the masses. How does education help a society?

a. Can education ever be harmful to a society?

1. Many of the philosophers of the Enlightenment believed that Absolutism was the best path to natural rights. Read pages 140-144
in the textbook on the idea of Enlightened Absolutism. Did this idea work in reality? Is there any way that it COULD work?
What would you need? Does Absolutism have any advantages over democracy? Explain your response.