The Role Of Nature In John Locke's Second Treatise Of Government

Locke’s idea of the state of nature men had kept their promises and honoured their obligations. In locke’s first treatise he argued that there was no divine right for monarchs, because God didn't put men above others and therefore everyone was equal. In his second treatise he strikes Hobbes and speaks his thought on the state of nature “man is free and in this condition all men equal”. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free to order their actions, of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the of the law of nature. This idea influenced him to believe that human nature is represented by reason and tolerance the reasoning was "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it", and that law is the reason. Much different than Hobbes, who had believed people were selfish and needed to be

What makes a political authority legitimate? A legitimate political authority, in this essay, will be taken to mean that there is a justification for an individual or a body to have power over other people in determining such things as laws and protection of freedom. To consider this question, three theories shall be looked at – Hobbes’, Rousseau and finally Locke and determine which gives the most persuasive account of legitimate political authority. To begin with, their hypothetical starting point, the state of nature, shall be discussed to establish the foundations of their political authority. Secondly, the reasons that shall lead man to get out of the state of nature will be examined in order to see if these logically follow on from

In chapter two of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the idea of a natural law is introduced, and with this law, Locke brings forward several implications of how government is formed and run. Before there was government, everyone had equal rights, and land was a god given right to be shared by everyone. When people began to organize, they consented to give up certain rights to receive certain benefits. Locke argues that this is natural, as since men are equal, “all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal” (sec. 4). If every man provides help for others, everyone benefits. So, even though not everything is perfectly shared and distributed, equality remains, but is balanced through a more complex system.

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

John Locke’s social construct, which is inherently based on the The Law of Nature, bestowed by God, assuring humans with the right of health, liberty and property, is undoubtedly flawed to some extent in which specific aspects of such can be exploited to justify wrongful doings. Given that Locke forms that the human state of nature is one of relative peace, in which each person is inherently moral trough universal religious affiliation, and whom follow their bidding without interference, in regard to the rights bound by the law of nature, and the constant tendency for humans to develop disputes amongst these natural rights, specifically that of property, the attraction of swaying away from a state of nature is in part to maintain one’s property safe and equal. This is an important factor in Locke’s theory as it is what disputes the choice of staying in a peaceful state of nature in the menace of possible war and danger.

Las Casas portrays how the poor treatment of the natives impacted their lives and his: “Some mothers even drowned their babies from sheer desperations... My eyes have seen these acts so foreign to human nature, and now I tremble as I write” (Zinn 7). Additionally, comparing the vibrant life of the natives before Columbus arrived to the cruelty they endured after, aids the reader in seeing how the Spanish destroyed the native populations’ livelihood and hope. Arriving in what is now Cuba, Las Casas observes, “ [They live in] large communal bell-shaped buildings... made of very strong wood and roofed with palm leaves” and “They are extremely generous with their possessions and by the same token covet the possessions of their friends and expect the same degree of liberality” (Zinn 5). These depictions of Native American society reveals how peacefully they lived with one another without foreign intervention. However, the utopian world they thrived in is crushed after the Spanish arrive. Las Casas’ clear accounts allow the readers to harshly realize this as he explains, “But our work was to exasperate, ravage, kill, mangle and destroy...”(Zinn 6). As the conquistadors’ mission is immoral and horrifying, especially compared to the kind natives that populate the land, the reader sympathizes with the natives’ perspective, rather than

Locke feels that this system of government is lacking in that the ruler has all control, and may not be stopped in abuses of power, which Locke fears. Humans beings decide to form a society out of the state of nature because there must be unity among men in order to protect one another, and so that they may punish offenders of the justice. Men do this under the rule of an indivdual who is selected by the people, and to whom the people give up some of their personal rights.Though humans give up certain rights to the chosen authoriy, they are entitled to certain rights reserved to them alone, which they hold within the society. All members of the society should be equal under the law of justice, and that no man is better than another, since all men are created equal, and all are equal before the laws of nature. The law of nature states that people attain property through the labour they do.The ruler or authority over a society should be an indivdual

The state of nature is the idea of life without society, government, state, or laws. John Locke and Hobbes both agree that the state of nature is equivalent to a state of perfect freedom and equality, although they both understand these terms differently. Hobbes argues that equality leads to inequality in the state of nature. Inequality arises from the idea of man having the right to pursue their self-interest, with no duties to each other. Without duties to each other when, “Any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 184). In the Hobbesian natural state, man is made up of diffidence and lives with no security other than what he can provide himself (Hobbes 185). By virtue, men will enter a continuous state of war for self-preservation because it is man’s natural right to act on what he thinks is necessary to protect himself.

Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race

John Locke linked human behavior with our nature. He argued in his works that men are governed and guided by the rules within our nature. “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” (2nd Treatise.6) Even without any manmade laws that specifically guide us what and how to do a certain thing, we are programmed to follow basic rules mutually understood by every human on Earth. Locke brought up that these rules discourage, in fundamental, people from gaining power by depriving that of others. He noticed, by specifically employing the word mankind, that the ability to accept and live by this rudimentary rule is the ultimate characteristic that makes us who we are. It is the ability to respect other’s

One of the first political theorists, Aristotle once wrote in his novel Politics, “Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” (Aristotle 4) Dating back to Ancient Greece, the state of nature has been observed and disputed for centuries. It wasn’t until the 1600s, was Aristotle’s theory ever seriously debated. Thomas Hobbes developed his own theory on what is the state of nature in his novel The Leviathan. This writing sparked interest in philosophers as to what human nature truly is, not just what Aristotle had suggested. Just thirty-eight years later, John Locke anonymously published his writings Two Treatises of Government, suggesting a differing outlook on the state of nature to Hobbes. Through a summarization of each philosopher’s depiction of the state of nature and explanations of the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, one will be able to find which argument is the most compelling.

Human nature signifies the set of principles that define how mankind operates on a daily basis. Generations have often debated the nature of man, with both optimistic and cynical views. Government represents the organized structure that controls man. In Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes advocates for an absolute monarchy to keep citizens well behaved because man is inherently self-interested. John Locke, on the other hand, depicts in Second Treatise of Government that a bipartite political society is the ideal form of government because we are in a state of nature and are free to do as we please. Hobbes ' theory that absolute monarchy is the best form of government because man is in a constant state of war is a sound assertion because humans have conflicting desires that create a state of war, humans form government to alleviate the state of war, and absolute monarchy provides the most efficient means of providing security that is absent in a state of war.

Locke regarded humans naturally in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions” (Locke Two treatises ex.4). Along with this comes unbounded indulgence of the benefits of law of nature whereby men “has by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others” (Locke Two treatises ex.87). In addition, “it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society” (Locke Two treatises ex.77). Locke views that the formation of government “derive[d] from God’s will” (Dunn 2003, p. 37) and originated from men’s need to protect their property as a collective, where a common

Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau all claim an integral space in the realm of political philosophy. Through their respective dissertations, each author analyzed man in his natural state and derived a form of civil society from that conclusion. While each author observes man in his own way and thus come to his own forms of subsequent government, equality seems to be a defining feature in all of their theories. All authors engage this notion heavily within their texts and use this comparison of man to man to draw powerful inferences from that. This paper will briefly summarize Hobbes’, Locke, and Rousseau’s definition of the state of nature and then critically analyze the role of equality in crafting the construction of government.

The proclaimed “Father of Liberalism,” John Locke, is an essential figure to study. If not for his sheer amount of philosophical knowledge, then for the profound impact that he has had on the structure of America’s government. In The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke rejects the status quo and opts for a key principle in government that monarchies simply do not have: a social contract. However, before a social contract is created, people must undergo the state of nature; a place of “perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons” (Chapter 2, Section 4). John Locke skillfully uses the state of nature as a starting point to explain how a reasonable government and civil society are created. The state of nature is the essential beginning that any society must take at first. From this, we see the emergence of natural freedoms; our rights to life, liberty, and property; and how a government may limit those for our own benefit.