John Locke (29 August, October, 1704)

Transcription

1 John Locke (29 August, October, 1704) John Locke was English philosopher and politician. He was born in Somerset in the UK in His father had enlisted in the parliamentary army during the civil war. Locke had anti royalist upbringing. When Locke was only ten years old the civil war broke out in England. His father took the side of parliament to fight against the king. He was empirical Like Hobbes Locke had also the opportunity to witness the civil war and its consequences. He viewed everything with an outlook of reality. He took the side of people who were anti-royalist. In the public life he was an opponent of Cromwell and critical of his despotic functioning. He was accused of conspiracy against King Charles II and sought asylum in Holland; where he came into contact with William of orange who became the king of England after the Bloodless Revolution of Locke returned to England and occupied several important public positions. He retired from public life and died in In his period he worked as diplomat, civil servant. He had practical experience about almost all aspects of social and political life. This enabled him to see everything in real perspective. Social contract theory- State of Nature- In order to explain the origin of political power, Locke began with a description of the State of Nature. Locke s description of State of Nature was not as gloomy and pessimistic as Hobbes. As all of us know, the State of Nature is the stock in trade of all contract theories of the state. It is conceived as a state prior to the establishment of political society. Locke believes that man is a rational and social creature and as such capable of recognizing and living in a moral order. He is not selfish, competitive and aggressive. The Locke an state of nature, far from being a war of all is a state of Peace good will, mutual assistance and preservation. It represents a pre-political rather than a pre-social condition. Men do not indulge in constant warfare in it, for peace and reason prevail in it. The state of nature is governed by a law of nature. This law 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 one another in his life, health, liberty or possessions for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another s pleasure. In the Locke a state of nature men have equal natural rights to life, liberty and property together known as Right to Property. These rights are inalienable and inviolable for they are derived from the Law of Nature which is God s reason. Everyone is bound by reason not only to preserve oneself but to preserve all mankind in so far as his own preservation does not come in conflict with it. Men are free and equal and there is no commonly acknowledged superior whose orders they are obliged to obey. Everybody is the judge of his own actions. But though the natural condition is a statue of liberty, it is not a state of license. Nobody has the right to destroy himself and the destroy life of any other men. Because there is no common judge to punish the violation of natural law in the state of nature, every individual is his own judge and has executive power of punishing the violators of law of nature. William Ebenstein in his Great Political Thinkers wrote that the law of nature in the Locke and state of nature is deficient in three important points. First, it is not sufficiently clear. If all men were guided by pure reason they would all see the same law. But men are biased by their interests and mistake their interests for general rule of law. Second, there is no second party judge who has no personal state in dispute. 1

2 Third, in the state of nature the injured party is not always strong enough to execute the law. In other words, in the Locke a state of nature there are some short comings and inconveniences. Absence of a law making body law enforcing agency and an impartial judicial organ in the state of nature where the serious short comings in the state of nature. Thus we find that the state of nature, while it is not a state of war is also not an idyllic condition, and, therefore, it has to be superseded sooner or later. Conflict and uncertainties are bound to arise on account of the selfish tendencies in human nature. The state of nature is always in danger of being transformed into a state or war. Where everyone is the judge in his own case and has the sole authority to punish peace is bound to be threatened. Natural Rights- The concept of Natural rights forms an important theme in Locke a political philosophy. According to Locke, men in the state of nature possessed some natural rights like right to life, liberty and property. These natural rights are derived from natural law and are limited by it. The freedom of man and liberty of acting according to his will is grounded on having reason, which is able to instruct him in that law he is to govern himself by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. The end of law is not to abolish or to restrain but to preserve or enlarge freedom for in all the states of created beings, where there is no law there is no freedom. According to Locke, Right to Property is intimately connected with right to life and liberty as its necessary consequence. Sometimes Locke sums up all natural rights in the right to property. Life and liberty are more important than property. Man creates property by mixing his labour with the objects of nature. In the beginning all things were held in common. But common ownership is not sufficient to provide men with means of life and satisfy their needs. Man must mix his labour with resources provided by nature to enable him to make use of them in a more efficient and profitable way. Since man owns his own person his body and limbs, the object with which he mixes his labour becomes his own property by right. This is the origin of the famous labour theory of value common to both the classical and Marxian economics. Locke does not believe that man has an unlimited right of appropriation. According to Locke, in the state of nature individuals are conscious of these natural rights for they are subject to reason. The state of nature is distinguished from the civil society by the absence in it of a common organ for the interpretation and execution of law of nature. Hence in the state of nature every individual is the interpreter and executor of law of nature. Variety in interpretation leads to chaos and confusion and consequent insecurity of life and property. Hence it is necessary to replace the state of nature into civil society in which there would be a known law accepted by all and applied by an impartial and authoritative judge whose decision would be enforced by the state. Thus Locke an state was created by entering into contract by the men in the state of nature. Contract- According to John Locke, men in the state of nature entered into a contract due to some inconveniences such as absence of common law making, law-enforcing and law interpreting agency capable of protecting natural rights. Therefore, the problem is to form a civil society by common consent of all men and transfer their right of punishing the violators of Natural Law to an independent and impartial authority. Locke s contract was a contract of each with all, surrender by the individual of his personal right to fulfil the commands of the laws of Nature in return for the guarantee that his rights as nature ordains them - life, liberty and property - would be preserved. Locke in his Two Treatises on Government wrote the nature of the contract thus: Each individual contract with each to unite into and constitute a community. The end for which this contract is made is the protection and preservation of property, in the broad sense of the word- that is, life, liberty and estate-against the dangers both from within and without the community According to Locke an contract, each individual agrees to give up not all his natural rights but that one of interpreting and 2

3 executing the law of nature and redressing their own grievances. But this right is given not to any person or group of persons but the community as a whole, that too on the understanding that the natural rights of the individual to life, liberty and property will be guaranteed by the community. The Locke an contract was, thus, not general as with Hobbes but limited and specific in character. Locke wrote in book II thus: Men being as has been said by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the political power of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and invite into a community for their comfortable safe and peaceable living, one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it enquires not the freedom of the rest they are left, as they were, in the liberty of the state of nature: when any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest. As such Locke and social contract was a contract with the community as a whole resulted in the establishment of that common political superior- the state- which was supposed to enforce the law of Nature. After they have set up a political or civil society, the next step is to appoint a government to declare and execute the natural law. Locke calls this process as the supreme authority established by the commonwealth or civil society. In other words, there are two aspects in Locke and contract- one by which the civil society is established and the other which creates the government. While the first is the product of a contract, the second is only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends and there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. The relationship between society and the government is expressed by the idea of trust because it obviates making the government a party to the contract and giving it an independent status and authority. According to Locke, the newly created government has three functions - legislative, executive and federative. The legislative is the supreme power to which all other powers, particularly executive must be subordinate. The executive power is subordinate to the legislative and is responsible to it. The federative power is concerned with foreign affairs. Though the legislative power is supreme it is not arbitrary. It exists for common good which is the preservation of freedom and protection of property. Further, the legislative cannot rule by arbitrary decrees, but only by duly promulgated and established laws. Locke s theory of property- According to Macpherson, Locke s primary objective, behind making of State and Government, is to provide justification to the Theory of Property. Locke has written in his own book - Two Treatises of Civil Government that, the greatest and the main purpose, for which men have built Commonwealth or Government is to protect property. According to him right to property is natural right of man, and while defining property, he said that, property is personality of individuals and objects of their ownership. By Property he means land and goods. In State of nature everyone had right to acquire property independently. According to natural law, every person was equal and independent, so no one would invade other s lives, health and goods. According to Locke, everyone has been given equal capabilities by nature. So no one is subject to another. In the State of Nature, men used the concept of natural law to fulfil their selfish interests, that s why men made contract among themselves to abandon these discomforts, and the central aim of this contract was to protect rights of property. Locke considered right to property so important that he also included the right to life and liberty in it. In the State of nature all were equal; everyone had equal control over the property. Locke, while giving labour theory of value said, every person has right on his own body, not on other s life or body. So by the means of labour done by his own body and work done by his own hands, men will possess control over his property, because by the work done by body and hand man input his labour in natural 3

4 goods. According to him, God has given us enough goods in nature and primary aim of man is to protect his life and protect the property earned by his labour. He proposed following restrictions in connection with acquisition of property - Man will earn by himself, but leave property for others too, as everyone has the right to secure his life. Man doesn t have right to destroy the objects created by God. So man should earn property in an amount that would not be destroyed. Locke accepted that, for the acquisition of property, the other person s consent is not required, because the ability to labour is given by God to all people. In the context of the Land ownership Locke s idea is that, with having sufficient property for themselves, rest of property must leave for others. Macpherson called Locke s thoughts as Possessive Individualism, Locke initially recognizes limited rights of the property, but later he accepted the unlimited rights of the property. According to Macpherson, due to the circulation of currency in the modern era, the limited right to acquire property has converted in to acquisition of unlimited property, since the money is never destroyed. He subsequently gives recognition to acquire unlimited land property also. According to him, Locke supported Laissez Fair state, and men had used commerce and trade by mutual agreement, for capital accumulation. It shows that he is a pro-capitalist thinker. According to Macpherson, Locke s Labour theory of value has also changed by the time, and according to Locke, property earn by man s own labour is his own property, but he also said that, the property produced by workers are also owner s property. Concepts of Natural Rights- According to Locke, Natural Rights of individuals are inherent; they are just like the one s skin colour. Hence, these natural rights have not been given by society, state or government, and no one can take away these rights. State and government are made to protect these natural rights, and if state and government attack on these rights, then Locke even gave men the Right to Revolt for this. According to him revolution could be in the following circumstances - If the king or prince had ruled arbitrary rather than the rule of law. If the king or prince were being obstacle in the meetings or independent operations of the legislature. Arbitrary changes in election laws without the consent of the people. If the king leaves the public or the common people in the hands of a foreign power. If the chief executive officer neglects the law and does not implement it. Locke s concept of natural rights is created by the natural law, and he considered natural law as God s universal law. His concept of Natural Law is different from that of Hobbes. This Law is Medieval Law, because he was very influenced by Richard Hooker. He made natural rights on the basis of natural law. He has empirically proved the justification of natural laws, which has an existing discrepancy in his views. Right of Liberty, Rights of Religious Tolerance- While defining freedom Locke said that, Law, is not against liberty, but the liberty has conserved and cultivated by the Law. Locke supported the limited and constitutional government to maximize the Liberty. So he rejected the Hobbes s concept of 4

5 totalitarian rule. In his famous writing Letter on Toleration, he has given his important views in context of Liberty, and his idea of liberty has evolved as Religious Liberty. Locke, calling himself a Christian, said that, Being religious absolutely does not mean controlling religious feelings of others, because religion is a matter of internal believe and faith, which cannot be governed by state and government. According to Locke, interpretation of Christianity should be logical and divine commands should be interpreted in light of conscience. According to Sively obligation of taking care of soul is a subject of person s faith and controlling it is not a duty of State. According to Locke, the church is a voluntary organization. Therefore it cannot use binding force. State is a creation of person s contract. Therefore, only the State has the power to punish. Locke presented the idea of secular State while strongly supporting liberty and in respect of economic activities; full freedom has been given by him to persons. Critics- According to Locke, the Natural Rights of individuals are innate. These rights are just like the person s skin colour. According to him, no one can snatch them; therefore Hacker said that in the thoughts of the Locke there is a description of the politics of the capitalist society. Macpherson called him as Possessive Individualist. According to some thinkers, Locke s concept of Natural Rights is inconsistent, useless and ridiculous. According to Bentham, Rights are given by the State, and assuming rights before state and government is irrational. Later, Green completely changed the concept of natural rights. According to Green, Natural Right doesn t means that it is granted prior to the state, but it means that these are important for basic development of a person. Locke s liberalism and Imperialism- Locke is the Father of empiricist and liberal thoughts. Locke recognizes the idea of Laissez Fair State. Which has following two meanings? 1. Freedom of contract. are - 2. Lack of Patriarchal Governance. Locke supported Limited and Constitutional Governance to protect the liberty. Examples of this There is a restriction of Natural Rights on the State. Division of the organs of Government. Individuals have the right to revolt. According to Locke, each person is rational, and every person wants more pleasure, and every person best knows his interests. Therefore person should have complete freedom. Locke absolutely opposed the autocratic rule, so the basic recognition of the democratic governance can be seen in the Locke s thoughts, because he supported Limited and Constitutional Governance with the principle of consent. This point is to be noted that liberalism is the end and democracy is a means for the Locke. He supported the principle of representation, but he gives it only to wealthy persons. By proposing the concept of Laissez Fair States, he tried to draw a clear division in the State and economic activity. According to him, economic activities are controlled by the market, and everyone works for his own advantage. Therefore by leaving everyone free, the entire society will be benefited on its own. He gave more emphasis on the rational hyinstead of the traditions and customs. While assuming the state as a necessary evil, he supports its negative works, as the following - Maintain law and order. - To protect citizens from external enemies. 5

6 - To maintain the freedom of contract. Thinker of Contradictions- According to Locke Legislature is superior to the government. Natural rights are superior to the State and Natural Laws are mightier than the Natural Rights. Therefore Locke could not ensure weather Natural laws are more important, or the penal power of the government. The division between organs of the State by the Locke is also flawed. According to him the part of Government are Legislature, Executive and Federal Power. He assumed Judiciary in the Executive itself. Therefore his division of organs of Government is irrational and Montesquieu reformed it later. According to Locke, the ratio in which a man inputs his labour in any natural goods, he owns those goods; but he says that the property earn by his servants will also be the man s property, it is absolutely irrational. According to Locke, the State of Nature was peaceful and co-operative; people had natural rights in state of Nature. The idea of contract in this case appears to be inconsistent. Locke is father of liberalism, but he totally accepted the medieval ideas also. Locke is father of empiricism, this means that, any object can be known by the five senses only. But the basic question arises that how an empirical person can accept the concept of God. Natural law, described by the Locke, is Divine law, from which natural rights were emerged. Lock s Contribution- The profounder of the concept of rights. The father of liberalism. Ardent advocate of freedom and religious tolerance. Supporters of the principle of consent. The prophet of limited and constitutional government. Proprietor of empiricism. Evaluation (Conclusion) - In the thoughts of Locke, the concept of person s Liberty and Rights are central ideas. He tried to change a feudalistic, privileged and conservative society in to a free, dignified and tolerant society. Keeping the basis of governance, named Liberalism, Locke laid the foundations of democracy, which is relevant even today after 400 years. Comparison of Hobbes and Locke- Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau s thinking structure by human nature is similar, but the difference is found in the views of all three. Comparison of Hobbes and Locke is bellow - 6

7 Hobbes s state of Nature was a state of constant struggle. While Locke s state of Nature was peaceful. According to Hobbes primary objective of contract is self-preservation. While according to the Locke, the contract aims to protect property. Hobbes and Locke both accepted theory of consent and both were against the theory of Divine origin of state; but Hobbes supports totalitarian governance, while Locke supports limited, constitutional governance on the basis of right to property. According to Hobbes people give their all powers to the King, while in the contract of Locke powers are devoted towards community and only penal powers are given to the state, rest of all powers are held by people themselves. According to Hobbes, as a result of breach of contract, the people will return to the state of Nature, while according to the Locke on the breach of contract only the government will be dissolved and not the state. In the thoughts of Hobbes both, the idea of Individualism and Totalitarianism, are found, while Locke clearly supported the idea of Individualism and Liberalism.... 7