Following in a tradition of unconventional works started by Machiavelli and carried to fruition by Hobbes, Locke was aware of the consequences of diverging from the church’s teachings in. Locke’s liberalism was unique from classical political philosophy because it focused on humans in the state of nature and their inclination to fall from the state of nature into the state of war. He dealt with this issue by perpetually reconciling his philosophical ideologies with those of Christianity. Locke’s exact motivation for his constant reconciliation is unclear: he could have been a devout believer of Christianity who thought God to be a highly logical being or he could have recalled the persecution of Hobbes and endeavored to avoid the same fate. …show more content…
For instance, if a person takes a sip of water or eats some grapes, that person has removed that sip of water and those grapes from the common. Since all materials necessary to life belong to all men in common, survival dictates that there must be “a means to appropriate” and thus a means of establishing private property (Locke 19). Locke goes on to weaken all arguments that the tools of survival are not private property by asserting that “the fruit or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian… must be his, and so his, i.e. a part of him” (Locke 19). This statement demonstrates the necessity of private property because survival requires the Indian to eat, and to eat, he must remove his food source from the common. Once he removes the venison and uses it for nourishment, it becomes a part of him and nobody else can ever use it. After Locke establishes that private property is a necessity of life, he begins to draw on Christian principles to justify inequality in …show more content…
He accomplishes this by establishing that “every man has a property in his own person” which is to say that every man owns himself (Locke 19). However, Locke makes it clear that even though man owns himself, as a creation of God, he has no right to take his own life which further reconciles Locke’s philosophy with the precepts of Christianity. Additionally, when Locke states that “the labour of his body [man’s] and the work of his hands … are properly his,” he identifies labor as the distinguishing factor in the creation and accumulation of private property (Locke 19). Locke goes on to assert that “labour… added something… more than nature,” thus through labor man can transform common into private (Locke 19). Then Locke appeals once again to the Christian ideals of frugality and moderation by asserting that “nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy” thus establishing “a bounds, set by reason” to limit the acquisition of private property and hinder greed (Locke
In his Second Treatise on Government Locke focus’ on liberalism & capitalism, defending the claim that men are by nature free and equal against the idea that God had made all people subject to a king. He argued that people have ‘natural rights’, such as the right to life, liberty, and property, that hold the foundation for the major laws of a society. He says, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” (2nd Treatise, Chapter 2, sec 4). John Locke used this claim, that all men were naturally free and equal, for understanding the idea of a government as a result of a social contract. This is where people in the state of nature transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better guarantee the steady and comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property.
John Locke defends the right to private property in Second Treatise of Government by transforming Biblical principles into Capitalist principles. Locke explores nine steps that stem from the Book of Genesis to explain “in a positive way how men could come to own various particular parts of something that God gave to mankind in common” (Locke 11). Locke believes that the unnatural inequality is perfectly acceptable. because he notes that some people work harder than others so they deserve more. The only way to ensure his argument is to guarantee that private property is secured by divinity, otherwise men can give and take away property freely, which includes the sovereign.
While reading the “The Second Treatise of Government,” you can notice and see that John Locke has a strong standing for civil rights as well as helping with the development of the Constitution of the United States. He states that the “consent of the governed,” is basically saying that communities are not put together by the divine right or ruled by. Paternal, familial, and political are types of powers that John Locke mentions that have all have unlike characteristics. He inspired others to believe in and want equal rights and democracy. John Locke talks about the state of nature, which basically states that no one has the power to be ruler of someone, as well as they are able to do what they want in a freely matter. In other words people are born just like anyone else that is born, and should have equally rights to property, health, and liberty, and that no one should have the power over anyone. Everyone should be able to live and enjoy his or her own freedom and wellbeing. However, the state of nature is not a guarantee to have natural laws, which could help with the protecting of one’s property. According to him having your own personal freedom was the true meaning of state of nature. John Locke thought that people were following his faith in human rationality through the declaration of Locke. John Locke states that if the government takes away from others for them to empower them then the people have right and opportunity to go against
“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property”. “From all which it is evident, that though the things of Nature are given in common, man (by being master of himself, and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it) has still in himself the great foundation of property;...” (Locke, 1978
Locke argues that since money has little value besides for the value that men give it, men, by accepting the use of money, have “agreed to a disproportionate and unequal passion of the earth, they have, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the product of” (698). Locke places high value on property. He says that human beings are born with a natural right to preserve their own property, that is, their life, liberty, and estate. He also says that the preservation of property is the number one reason people enter into a civil society. A civil society is there to protect the natural rights of humans, which is the preservation of their private property (707).
to him as well. So by adding labor to property we add something of our
Locke begins his explanation of private property by establishing how individuals come to possess property separate from the common resources of mankind. The defining feature of a piece of private property is labor, as the individual who performs the “labour that removes [the good] out of that common state nature left it in” makes the property his own (V. 30). According to Locke, the common resources of nature are open to all mankind, but a good becomes an individual’s own when a person performs some sort of labor on it. This stems from his idea that industry is an extension of self-ownership – people have natural rights of their own being, and extending these personal rights through work is how people come to own other things. Labor is what establishes ownership of a good, and as long as the amount of property taken is within a reasonable and modest amount, people are free to take what resources they must from the Earth. Although Locke argues in favor of the possession of private property, he emphasizes the point that it is “dishonest” for a man “to hoard up more than he could make use of” (V. 46). When people take property in excess, perishable
Locke argues that chaos the within the state of nature leads humans to merge into commonwealths. Locke believes without government, men live like beasts. In this society. strength is the strongest quality and the strongest can cause chaos. Locke quotes Genesis 9:6, “Whose sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”(The Bible, Genesis 9:6) He believes that within the state of nature there is some order. This is because naturally humans create order and will punish offenders. Locke notes that the laws of nature are what unify men into political bodies. He argues this because living alone, people are unable to procure their civil interests. Therefore, naturally we seek communion and fellowship for mutual benefit. The personal consent of each individual to join the political body unifies them into a political society or commonwealth. Locke identifies a commonwealth as a “society of men constituted only for procuring, preserving, and advancing their own civil interests.” (78) He argues that this civil interest is in protecting the wellbeing, liberty, and possession of external goods. Locke argues that god gave the world to men in common for their best advantage in life. Therefore, every man has right to self preservation and acquisition of goods. The means in which parts of the earth can be appropriated to an individual are if: there is a necessity for the good to be allocated or the labour of the individual cultivates the possessions. Within the commonwealth, Locke believes all people should have equal access to freedom and civil interests. Children should be educated with reason by parents and then deemed responsible when they reach adulthood. Political power resembles the right of making and enforcing the laws. The laws in
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, two philosophers with differing opinions concerning the concept of private property. Rousseau believes that from the state of nature, private property came about, naturally transcending the human situation into a civil society and at the same time acting as the starting point of inequality amongst individuals. Locke on the other hand argues that private property acts as one of the fundamental, inalienable moral rights that all humans are entitled to. Their arguments clearly differ on this basic issue. This essay will discuss how the further differences between Locke and Rousseau lead from this basic fundamental difference focusing on the acquisition of property and human rights.
	One of Locke’s central themes is the distribution of property. In a state of natural abundance "all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common" (page 18). In this situation the only thing man naturally owns is "his own person. This no body has any right to but himself" (page 18). Therefore, man is in a way equal, however it is an imperfect equality. "Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property" (page 18). Therefore, everything belongs to mankind in general, until a man decides to take it upon himself to acquire something from its pure state in nature, and since he has to work to achieve this, the fruits of the labor are his.
Having established his state of nature, Locke begins his description of the formation and transition to society, and appropriately starts with a discussion of property. “God, who hath given the World to Men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of Life, and convenience.” (Locke, Second Treatise, V.26). Here, Locke does little more than apply natural law (self preservation) to what he sees around him (land), but in doing so, makes a groundbreaking shift. He reveals that, following from natural law, men have a right to use what they have around them to further their own preservation and lives. In addition, man has an inherent, and obvious, possession of himself and all that comes with it, including, and most importantly, labor. “The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.” (Locke, Second Treatise,
Next, under Locke’s state of nature, he also places a heavy emphasis on extensive rights, including property rights. He believed that self-determination implied private property rights and that human life without property is not free. In refutation to this
Political philosopher John Locke ideas and theories serve as a foundation in our democratic world. In the Second Treatise of Government sovereignty is placed in the hands of the people. Locke argues that everyone is born equal and has natural rights in the state of nature. He also argues that men have inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. The central argument around the creation of a civil society was with the protection of property. In this essay I will explain Locke's theory of property and how it is not anything other than a "thinly disguised defense of bourgeois commercial capitalism." This statement is defended through Locke's personal background and his justifications for the inequalities of wealth.
Locke foresaw the same potential threat as Hobbes, but he felt that man, as a social, animal, also had an innate desire to cooperate as well as compete. He could choose to be virtuous as well as venal (Morgan, 2011, p. 716). Not simply because he was “good,” but because cooperation and conflict reduction were also in his enlightened self-interest (Morgan, 2011, p. 594). Locke, unlike Hobbes, was a Deist, and was influenced by his religious view of man. Men are sinners
To explain how the rights of an individual should be managed Locke first goes into detail about what an individual’s rights entail. Locke explains that a “man being born… hath by nature a power… to preserve his property – that is his life, liberty, and estate” (Locke). These rights, although