Pros And Cons of Absolutism

The history of Absolutism began throughout the seventeen century during the transition from Feudalism to Industrialism in England and was called "The Divine Right of Kings" England was experiencing a total topple of their monarchy and its replacement was initially by a Republic and then by a new and deteriorated monarchy. For England, at the end of the seventeen century they would see the erosion of the emperor's powers in the "Marvelous Transformation". Absolutism was a type of federal government where the ruling monarchs were accountable for God and sovereignty was embodied in the King only.

In spite of the attempts by the Kings in England their idea of Absolutism didn't strike its full power like it did when King Louis XIV of France took the throne. I believe I share the very same viewpoint of the bulk of individuals throughout this nation and even around the world that there are more cons and weaknesses of Absolutism than there are pros and strengths.

Get quality help now

Marrie pro writer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Absolutism

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I will start out with the cons and weak points. In all truth the notion that a person guy, a single "leader" might have all this power invested into him with a single view on the entire nation's personal options, religions, lifestyle options, culture and ethical values is beyond insane and a type of slavery if you ask me. His views are not shown the whole country and for a single individual to be in control of them all is troubling beyond belief. These queens were acknowledged as France's supreme lawmakers, administrators, judicators and ruler of the whole country.

Simply put, the judge, attorneys and jury! I would say that is a major "con" right there! Absolutism doesn't consider and even refuted any historic advancements during the clinical revolution throughout the Knowledge era. It likewise debunks science theories, new concepts on development, morals theories, personal family worths, individual way of lives and evolutionary nature of mankind in general.

It also lacks cultural differences and many of the monarchs seemed intolerant to any cultural diversity. Another weakness is that Absolutism basically ignores the circumstances in which ethical judgments are made and in today’s world in the 20th and 21st centuries those are the very freedoms and liberties we have as Americans. It’s a nightmare looking back in history and learning about these wealthy, selfish and greedy unruly men being the kings and rulers of an entire country. Really one “mind” and “theory” for all? Thank goodness for the Enlightenment era when the intelligent, educated 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 dangerous to their society was the fact that there was no Democratic legitimacy because the leader was not elected by the people he inherited the position by either a family passing away or given to them by a retiring king. So any liability and accountability is lacking when it comes to a bad ruling by an inefficient tyrant of a ruler.

Some examples include religion beliefs and castration to the non-believers and followers, a rush 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 taking my biased hat off for a moment I can open my mind to other people’s 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 need for ethical guidance.

Their ideas are that morality isn’t based on individual or group preferences but rather on absolute and universal values. Some people feel it’s 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 war because decisions are reached and implemented quickly, as there is a no debate and bureaucracy involved. There is a sense 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 Scientific and American revolutions, along with the end result of a strong U.S. Constitution and Bills of Rights that is now the foundation to our country’s civil liberties and freedoms we pride ourselves on and are very thankful to have.