Robert Filmer and Thomas Hobbes were two of the biggest proponents for absolute monarchy of their generation. While both were in favor of absolutism as well as total control given to the respective sovereign, the basis of their reasoning differs fundamentally. Robert Filmer claimed that absolute monarchy comes from the patriarchal rule, sanctioned by God himself. Filmer believes Adam was the first patriarch, and was given authority over his children, with each successive family following this sort of tier system(FIlmer 6-7). Accordingly, Filmer recognizes that families and towns will eventually grow, making it difficult to trace or decide lineage of the original patriarch, and in these situations, patriarchs may come together and decide on a sovereign. Filmer says that this decision is not really a decision of the people, but rather one of the “universal” patriarch, God himself(Filmer 11). Filmer uses this patriarchal tier system as his justification for absolute monarchy, as this is what God prescribed when giving Adam and succeeding patriarchs authority over their respective families. Monarchs should be given absolute power because it is the will of God in being granted authority as a patriarch, and citizens are essentially descendants of this patriarch, so it is their god-given duty to obey. Additionally, the Sovereign is bound by divine law and law of previous ruling patriarchs, and those who disobey will be rightfully punished harshly by God(Filmer 11). While Filmer argues for Absolutism on the basis of God, Thomas Hobbes, another absolutist proponent, argues this idea as an alternative to the “state of nature” in which man lived in before organized government. This state of nature was one of instability, and full of anarchy, as men are naturally self-interested(Hobbes 112). Hobbes believes that governments were formed to begin with to bring stability to >