Young Writers Society

Hi! Unfortunately I am not an English teacher like Ayumi here, but hopefully I can offer some insight for you.

From what I can tell, this is in a pretty standard five-paragraph essay format--not sure if that was the prompt, or just how you wound up writing this. Regardless, like Ayumi says, you do a pretty good job of following the outline set forth in the opening paragraph.

Here's where I think we can make some improvements: As Ayumi said, it's a little jarring to see Hobbes get introduced in that second paragraph, and while he does continue to be mentioned in paragraph three, I think, given that the whole thing kind of culminates in this question of whether or not revolutions are moral, it may be worth mentioning Hobbes briefly as Locke's contemporary in the opening paragraph. Instead of saying "Compared to other philosophers and thinkers" in that last sentence, for example, you could say something like "Compared to other philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes..." This sets up that comparison a little earlier so we can focus more specifically on just those two as we continue.

Now, the other thing that I'm not really sure about is this: what is the question you're answering? You state pretty clearly that John Locke is a philosopher with whom you strongly agree, and then lay out the tenets of his philosophy. There isn't another I-statement until the final paragraph. Are you trying to explain why you agree with John Locke, or was the goal just to explain why his philosophy is superior to others'? Is the goal to convince other people that John Locke's philosophy is better or more relevant than other philosophers? You do a really good job of explaining the philosophy itself, but if your goal is persuasion, or to explain yourself, then I think it would be worth while to reexamine some of the language to be more persuasive or more personal to you and your beliefs--or to events that are contemporary to you, maybe.

My last comment is (and take this with a grain of salt, because I don't know what the prompt in your assignment, if this is one, was) it might be worth while to have more quotes from Locke, and maybe even one from Hobbes. This way, you get to use source text instead of summarizing, which is typically stronger from an argumentative standpoint.

Otherwise, great work! Like Ayumi said already, you have nice transitions, and you do a good job tying everything back together. I don't see any glaring grammatical errors, and your paragraphs are nice and complete with their own thesis statements, evidence, and conclusions.

Hope this helps,
-Vento

I'm assuming this is for an assignment, considering the choice of the topic and the format, so..... teacher mode activate! I'm going to break it down paragraph by paragraph and hopefully you'll get an awesome score!

Beginning in the late 17th century and concluding in the 18th century, the Enlightenment was a period of time where scientific, political, and philosophical advances attained more authority and influence than blind obedience and superstition. The ideas of the thinkers who established these advances set the basis for education, governmental balance, people’s rights, and even revolution. The Enlightenment produced many ideas regarding the way people should be governed, and these ideas were centered around the state of nature, the social contract between the people and the government, and the ability for citizens to revolt. John Locke, a philosopher whom I strongly agree with, believed in a representative democracy whose sole purpose was to uphold and protect the natural rights of the people. Compared to the ideas of other philosophers and thinkers, John Locke’s ideas of the state of nature, social contract, and revolution would create the most successful and legitimate government.

Therefore, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both agreed that humans needed to escape this violent state of nature by forming a society, where humans would resign some of their freedoms in order to assure peace. However, these two thinkers disagreed on how this newly formed society should be run and how much power was given to the government.

However, Locke believed that the social contract should be an agreement among not only the people but also the government, making sure that the government acted only to protect and ensure the natural rights of the citizens. In Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, he says that a representative government that governed lightly was ideal: “When legislators try to gain or give someone else absolute power over their lives, liberties, and property of the people, they abuse the power which the people had put into their hands”. Found even in today’s governments, Locke’s ideas on balancing the power between people and government successfully ensures and protects the natural rights of the people.

In Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, he says that a representative government that governed lightly was ideal: “When legislators try to gain or give someone else absolute power over their lives, liberties, and property of the people, they abuse the power which the people had put into their hands” (Locke ##).

Like many others, Hobbes believed that revolution against governmental authority was never justified. However, Locke explained that people reserved the right to revolt if the government’s purpose was no longer solely to reserve the natural rights of the people. This unpopular idea was supported by the fact that corrupt governments should not and do not deserve to stay in power.

Thus, English philosopher John Locke’s ideas on the state of nature, the social contract between the people and the government, and the ability for the citizens to revolt are the closest to what I would deem the ideals on which a proper government should be established. These ideals were employed in acts like the American Revolution and documents like the Declaration of Independence, where Thomas Jefferson used Locke’s ideas on limiting governmental power and revolution. This proves that Locke’s ideas are not only applicable in theory but also to modem and even future societies.