Locke

Locke: Empiricism and Natural rights

Locke on “natural law” and “natural right”

  • Locke agrees with Aquians (against Hobbes) that in the “state of nature” humans have a natural sense of rirhgt and wrong

  • The primary law of nature is the right to life; closely related is the right to property. Locke defends this right thus:

    • When I consume something taken from the earth, it is certainly mine. But when does it begin ot be mine?

    • It does not begin to be mine when it is digested, or when it is put into my mouth, or when it is put on my plate.

    • Surely, it begins to be mine when I first obtain it through my labor form what nature has provided

  • Once I exert my effort to bring something useful or enjoyable from the eartgh, then I make it my own, my property to which I have a right

  • This “right” is negative: I don’t have a right to be provided with property, just a right to live without my property being taken form me

Why do we have the state?

  • Locke recognizes that in the state of nature the right to life and property is not always respected, hence the need for the state.

  • Without a state, we could not safeguard the social contract whereby we mutually agree to respect each other’s rights

  • But since the existence of rights antedates the existence of the state, Locke thinks that the state, in order to be legitimate, must act to safeguard natural rights.

  • The state must strictly limit itself to rule and maintenance of so called civil interests: life, liberty, and property

Locke vs. Hobbes on the state

  • Hobbes:

    • The state is the supreme authority in all matters of law and morals

    • The state is authorized to take any steps necessary to prevent a return to the state of nature

    • The state should consist in a single sovereign power with unlimited and unquestionable authority, otherwise it will be subject to challenge (which would throw the realm into chaos)

  • Locke

    • The state is authoritative only in protecting civil interests

    • To prevent tyranny the state should be limited in its power

    • The state should be formed in a manner that represents the interests and will of its members

Locke vs. Hobbes on religion and toleration

  • An interesting test case of the two approaches to government is the very different conclusions Locke and Hobbes came ot with regard to religious tolerance

    • Hobbes represents an extreme version of the standard view to his time.
      He is suspicious of all religious authority, as it could lead to a challenge against civil authority.

    • While he does not reject religion, Hobbes believes it should be strictly regulated by the state

    • There should only be one religion at most; if the state allows toleration of multiple religion, each one will attempt to overthrow the others (and possibily the government as well!) and thus sow discord in society