Between divine right monarchy and natural freedom of mankind

The paper examines Robert Filmer's arguments in defence of the divine right of kings in Patriarcha, or The Natural Power of Kings. Filmer argues that human beings are not born free by nature and, as a result, are expected to obey the kings/monarchs absolutely without questioning, due to the arbitrary power and the divine right bestowed upon the kings. This position defended by Filmer is antithetical to the notion of natural freedom of mankind defended by John Locke and other social contract theorists. Contrary to Filmer's view, this paper suggests that Filmer exaggerated the power of kings. In this paper, I wish to critically examine Filmer's arguments with which he supported his claim. The paper argues against Filmer's divine right monarchy for the following reasons: (i) it lacks rational justification, (ii) it was founded on misinterpretation of the scriptures, and (iii) it fails to address the atheists' question. In the final analysis, the paper concludes with the argument that the question of mutual exclusivity of the concepts in the discussion rests upon manifest misinterpretations of divine right and the natural freedom of mankind.