1. What is the primary difference in approach to the study of politics and society that distinguishes Montesquieu from contract theorists such as Hobbes or Locke?
The primary difference in approach to the study of politics and society that distinguishes Montesquieu from Hobbes or Locke is Montesquieu’s consideration of context. Hobbes and Locke are theorists who ignore contextual factors when discussing the formation of society and political bodies. Conversely, Montesquieu has an empirical approach to society and political bodies and takes into consideration all historical evidence making for a comparative, experiential approach.
2. Montesquieu famously observed (p. 169): “To prevent this abuse [of political authority], power should be a check to power.” With respect to the organization of government, how did he envision this kind of ‘check’ operating in practical terms? Why did he believe that only power can check power? What else might it check it?
To ensure there is no abusing of powers, Montesquieu advocates a system of government with checks and balances. He goes on to illustrate a distinction between monarchs and tyrants. A monarch becomes a tyrant when no one is checking their authority and when they are not held to the same standard of laws as their constituents. Montesquieu believes England properly demonstrates a checks and balance system, and therefore is more attractive than his home town of France. This idea perpetuates the formation of a separated branch of power that monitors and approves laws.
3. In contrast to Hobbes who defined law as the command of the sovereign, Montesquieu emphasizes the relational character of law. By this view, in what ways is law relational? Relational to what?
Although Montesquieu’s theory maintains Hobbesian premises, it departs from Hobbesian conclusions: man in the state of nature is primarily motivated by fear and other passions, but he is not necessarily ruled by them. Moreover, man is cognizant of the laws of nature which are “rooted” in the “constitution” of all human beings. Montesquieu argues that man is capable of grasping four laws of nature through direct, practical experience: first, man desires and seeks nourishment for his bodily preservation; second, man desires peace to sustain his bodily well-being; third, man is drawn instinctively to other people; and fourth, the knowledge derived from interaction with others moves him to desire to live in society.
4. In what ways do the laws of a particular country reflect the collective character of the people of that country, according to Montesquieu? To what extent does Montesquieu believe that any new legislation should be adapted to this character and to what extent does he believe that law can be used to change this character?
An aspect of Montesquieu that sets him apart from other political thinkers is his empirical and contextual approach. So the climate, cuisine, language, demographics, and any other cultural context to the society shapes the kinds of laws the government will have.
5. Hobbes emphasized the warlike character of life in a state of nature. Why did Montesquieu reject this view? When in the historical process does war emerge, according to Montesquieu?
Montesquieu rejects the idea that the state of nature is warlike because of the fact that he thinks that war requires an extensive infrastructure to start, support, and perpetuate war, something that he claims cannot be found in the state of nature, where man does not have the resources to create this necessary infrastructure. He claims that war can only emerge after man has organized itself into a general society.
6. Why, according to Montesquieu, don’t individuals comply with human laws with the same regularity or consistency as natural objects observe the laws of gravity?
Montesquieu justifies humanity’s inconsistent observation of laws by noting the difference between humans and objects: humans are free agents of
