1 Answer | Add Yours
I think that the notion of the monarchy possessing such power in More's construction is something that could be reexamined. The fundamental critique in the work would be how to merge monarchical rule with philosophical enlightenment. To a great extent, the fear intrinsic to this can be minimized with the embrace of a non- monarchy based government. More's work operates on the level that monarchy is the only rule of government. I think that seeking something more democratic with great opportunity to acknowledge voice would be critical here. I think that this is a practice in More's work to which he, himself, would testify given his own difficulties with royal rule in England. The analysis on economic interests, ensuring that military demands do not overrun a particular setting, and the need for rulers to embrace philosophical notions of the good can all be accounted for when government involves more voices and features a form of democratic checks and balances. In this idea, I think that More would say that the knowing what we do now, the limitations of monarchical rule are evident, indicating something that can be seen as especially bad.
We’ve answered 317,505 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question