preview

Of The State Of War Locke Summary

Good Essays

Locke begins his “Of the State of War” by defining “enmity and destruction” as a state of war that is brought about by a person’s deliberate attempt on another person’s life. The person invading or challenging another person’s freedom maybe killed in an act of defense. He then compared this situation with killing wild beasts when they possess threat to a person, because the oppressor or attacker “are not under the ties of the common law of reason” and so they “may be treated as beasts of prey.” The attacker will certainly kill the person if fallen under his power. Locke then continues to explain his claim that killing someone who possesses threat to one’s freedom is justified. He does so by stating that if someone wants to subdue another person, it can be concluded that the attacker could enslave the person. So, the attacker or oppressor puts himself in a state of war with the oppressed. According to that logic, it is justifiable to take away the life of a thief who has not done any harm, because he threatens the freedom of the innocent.

The shooting of Morrison occurred when Mr. Kind found Morrison hiding in the rear …show more content…

Locke further stated that both people involved in the trouble “should submit equally to the fair determination of law” after the ‘actual force ends” which is not possible in the state of nature. The innocent person can destroy the offender/attacker in the state of nature and continue to do so until the “aggressor offers peace” and the innocent person gets security. If there is the chance to appeal to the law, the state of war is invalid. If we look at the situation Mr. Kind was in, we can easily conclude that Mr. Kind did not have the chance to appeal. This is because he did not know the extent of threat Morrison possessed. In a society where mass shootings and other crimes are in rise, taking a prompt action at such time is

Get Access