Absolutism Pros And Cons Essay

The history of one-man rule began during the cardinal century during the transition from Feudalism to Capitalism in England and was known as The Divine Right of Kings England was experiencing a complete overthrow of their monarchy and its replacement was outgrowth by a Republic and consequently by a current and weakened monarchy. For England, at the end of the seventeen century they would see the erosion of the monarchs powers in the Glorious Revolution. dictatorship was a form of giving medication where the ruling monarchs were responsible for God and sovereignty was embody in the King only. Despite the attempts by the Kings in England their idea of Absolutism didnt pullulate its full power like it did when King Louis xiv of France took the throne. I believe I sh atomic number 18 the same opinion of the absolute majority of people throughout this country and even instaurationwide that at that place argon more cons and weaknesses of Absolutism than there are pros and s trengths.I will starting out with the cons and weaknesses. In all reality the notion that one man, a maven leader could comport all this power invested into him with a single view on the sinless countrys in-person choices, ghostly beliefs, lifestyle choices, culture and moral values is beyond insane and a form of slavery if you ask me. His views are not shared with the entire country and for a single person to be in deem of them all is disturbing beyond belief. These monarchs were recognized as Frances independent legislators, executors, judicators and rule of the entire country. In other words, the judge, lawyers and jury I would enounce that is a major con right there Absolutism doesnt take into account and even refuted any historical developments during the scientific conversion during the attainment era. It also debunks science theories, new ideas on creation, morals theories, personal family values, psyche lifestyles and evolutionary nature of humanity in general. It also lacks pagan differences and many of the monarchs seemed intolerant to any cultural diversity. Another weakness is that Absolutism basically ignores the circumstances in which estimable judgments are made and in todays world in the 20th and 21st centuries those are the very freedoms and liberties we save as Ameri fecess. Its a nightmare face back in history and learning about these wealthy, selfish and esurient unruly men being the kings and rulers of an entire country. Really one see and theory for all? Thank goodness for the Enlightenment era when the intelligent, better and morally sound men rose to the occasion to change the world in which they lived in from the dark ages into the light known as the Enlightenment period The last con of Absolutism that is probably the most austere to their society was the fact that there was no Democratic legitimacy because the leader was not elected by the people he inherited the linear perspective by either a family passing away or attached to them by a retiring king. So any liability and function is lacking when it comes to a bad ruling by an inefficient autocrat of a ruler.Some examples include religion beliefs and castration to the non-believers and followers, a hasten to judgment for a crime the accused might not have committed with their eye for an eye outlook of cruel punishments because remember there was no trials, jurors and their government lacked that liberty to defend yourself and speak your mind in that era. It was a great moment in history when Absolutism hit its shelf life with the age of the Enlightenment on the rise with a more modernized way of thinking. The pros and strengths were hard to gather but pickings my biased hat off for a moment I can open my mind to other peoples opinions and different views on Absolutism.I guess. Absolutism can provide a fixed ethical code which gives clear moral judgments in situations where there is a desire for ethical guidance.Their ideas are that mor ality isnt based on individual or group preferences but rather on absolute and public values. Some people feel its better to follow then to lead and it allows different societies to share common values. It could bring stability and a more civil society when everyone follows the same ruler, whether they agree with it or not, the ruler sets clear and simple rules which would any avoid conflicts, disagreements and any personal biases because options and consequences are not taken into account.This would be somewhat beneficial when it comes to decisions on state of war because decisions are reached and implemented quickly, as there is a no tilt and bureaucracy involved. There is a finger of equality within the government because the same rules apply to everyone in every situation. In conclusion, it is common sense that having an Absolute monarchy government over a Democracy is absolutely insane. We have come a long way from the dark ages into the era of the Enlightenment, the scient ific and American revolutions, along with the end result of a strong U.S. brass and Bills of Rights that is now the foundation to our countrys civil liberties and freedoms we pride ourselves on and are very thankful to have.