Ella: Locke, Contradictions on the State of Nature, and Loose Claims

By

On page 13, Locke claims that “princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world, are in a state of nature…for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community.” 


This excerpt seems contradictory to Locke’s characterization of the state of nature. Through Locke’s eyes, the state of nature is one of equality, mutual love, and obligation amongst men, and one where “there cannot be any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another as if we were made for one another’s uses” (pp. 9). A government with princes as rulers, such as a monarchy, does not necessarily follow that definition. Monarchs subordinate their subjects to their power and may leverage that power to destroy civilians as they see fit. So… what then is Locke’s definition of the state of nature?


Furthermore, Locke’s viewpoint that mutual agreements end a state of nature is not sound, which can be pointed out through some of Smith’s arguments. From my interpretation, Locke characterized monarchies as being in a state of nature because they usually aren’t created by mutual agreement to enter into one community. But even democracies aren’t sustainably contracts of mutual agreement, which Smith points out by stating that “it is true that the obedience of these who entrusted it might be founded on a contract, but their posterity have nothing to do with it, they are not conscious of it, and therefore cannot be bound by it” (pp. 403). Once again, Locke claims that monarchies aren’t a state of nature because not all members of monarchies were able to mutually agree to the contract’s terms. But the case is the same for democracies, after the first generation that created the democracy perishes. 


Overall, I found that Locke makes many bold and generalizing claims, without much evidence to back them up. On page 12, Locke argues that the law of nature calls for “‘Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” To support that argument, he references Cain’s self-loathing after murdering his brother, using this story to generalize that Cain’s characteristic is “writ in the hearts of all mankind.” As Hurley said in class, many of Hobbes’ claims about human nature are empirical observations. Locke, on the other hand, uses soft evidence, if at all, to back up his claims. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more