Category: John Locke

English philosophers Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) have both made large contributions to develop the political thoughts of society. Before we dive into each of their ideas, we need to be aware of the contexts from which they arose. Their vastly different individual circumstances have helped define striking distinctions in personal outlook. As such, this essay will first explore the historical context in which the different philosophers’ works were constructed and move on to consider the differences in the social contractual theory that emerged from their distinct perspectives on the state of nature. It will also attempt to reconcile their differences and discuss how they contribute to political theory.

Hobbes’ famous work, Leviathan appeared during one of the most turbulent periods of early modern British political history (Gingell,1999). In 1649, a civil war had broken out over who would rule England: Parliament or King Charles I. The war ended with the beheading of King Charles and shortly after his death, Hobbes had written the Leviathan, a defence of the absolute power of kings. The strife in the civil war can be said to have led Hobbes to be broadly supportive of hereditary monarchy (ibid.) as parallels can be drawn from him likening the Leviathan to a government, a powerful state created to impose order. These extended periods of tumult fashioned a pessimistic outlook on human nature and instilled in Hobbes a strong conviction for an absolute monarchy, believing that ultimately the only capable form of social governance was a sovereign with unrestricted ruling power (Kostakopoulou, 2002).

As for Locke, he published his Two Treatises of Government anonymously in 1690. Two years earlier, the unpopular King James II had been ousted in favour of King William III and his wife Queen Mary in the Glorious Revolution, with the help of a group of wealthy noblemen known as the Whigs. Locke had strong associations with the Whigs and sought to justify the ascension of King William. The Treatises were written with a specific aim – to defend the Glorious Revolution. Locke also sought to refute the pro-Absolutist theories of Sir Robert Filmer, which he and his Whig associates felt were getting far too popular. As such, considering the context, we can see why Locke took a more critical stance against the government and instead focuses on the free reign of people to reform the legislation.

Aware of the moulding contexts from which Hobbes and Locke arose, we may then delve into the essence of their theory and critically analyse their common grounds and areas where they diverge.

For a start, Hobbes and Locke are similar in that both refer to “a state of nature” in which Man exists without a government, and both refer to them as being equal in this state. Hobbes states that “nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of mind and body… the difference between man and man is not so considerable” (Wootton, p158). Similarly, Locke describes the nature of nature as a “state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another” (Wootton, p288). Both acknowledge that prior to any form of government, every individual is on his own and it is to everyone to protect his or her property and to secure the personal preservation.

Another common thread is that both also agree on the social contract as instrumental and are strong proponents of the social contract theory. For Hobbes, the way out of the “state of nature” is a “social contract,” to be agreed upon by the people to be governed by the government. According to Locke, people voluntarily give government some of their power through a “social contract” in order to protect their “natural rights” of life, liberty, and property. Both agree on this point and agree that there is a need to create socio-political processes that eventually create an equilibrium between the powerful and the less powerful. People need an authority to obey and must renounce some or all of their rights which they had in the state of nature. As a result, an individual or a group of individuals who will have the power to enforce the social contract.

Although both did expound on the dangers of a state of nature, Hobbes embodied a more negative conception of human nature, whereas Locke speaks of the potential benefits that can arise. Hobbes view is grounded in his cynical understanding of human behaviour in the absence of an overarching power. This is evident in “From man’s desire for “the same thing[s], which nevertheless they [all] cannot enjoy” (Leviathan, XIII, 3) follows competition, it degenerates quickly into a “war of every man against every man” (XIII, 12). For Hobbes, he argues that we have a right to deny another’s rights, if that is what is necessary to preserve our own rights – a point of view that could justify absolutism. At its root, Hobbes’ position on rights in the state of nature arises from his belief that we have no inherent moral compass, or at least his scepticism that any tendency towards altruism is of much value in the face of the powerful forces of self-preservation (Modern Conceptions of Freedom, 2013). Contrastingly, Locke defines the state of nature differently from Hobbes. To Locke, the state of nature is a state of liberty but not a state of ‘licence’, because it still falls under a law, viz. the Law of Nature (Michael Lacewing). It is not a bellum omnium contra omnes (without justice, property and law), but a state of peace in which individuals enjoy perfect freedom and equality under the protection of the law of nature (Lazarski, 2013)

Besides the varying levels of civility in their perception of the state of nature, Hobbes and Locke also have different attitudes towards legislature. Hobbes was more agreeable to the sovereign, believing that it always acts in a way that that was in accordance with the public good. As for Locke, he held a more sceptical stance; the sovereign is merely another man, who is subject to the same faults as all other men. This meant that the sovereign cannot always enjoy absolute or arbitrary authority and use his prerogative. Thus, the legitimacy of government depends upon the people’s consent. It is Locke’s distinction between these two states, as well as his recognition of the fallibility of the sovereign, which permits him to place the ultimate power in the hands of the people (Winfred, 2011). It is this important difference between these two conceptions which allows the people to retain a right to revolt. Therefore, although both Hobbes and Locke see government as a necessity, the amount of government and the means and justifications for ruling are very much different.

One main running theme is the idea of consent. Consent enables one to make binding agreements, i.e., contracts. Both classic social contract theories assume the individual parties to have normative power over themselves (D’Agostino 2017). Hobbes writes that “the Right of all Sovereigns, is derived originally from the consent of every one of those that are to be governed” (Hobbes, 1909; p. 448). For Locke, what constitutes civil society is the “consent of free men” (Locke, 1980; p. 53). The origin and the justification of the state’s legitimate power over its citizens, people uprisings in cases of government malfunctioning, as well as the property’s role in the social development are all influenced by the earlier social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke (Bёrdufi and Dushi, 2015).

Although both theories attempt to addresses the source of a sovereign’s legitimacy (and while technically unassailable), Hobbes’ account leans towards less appealing. His account of human behaviour in the state of war is incompatible with altruism and unselfishness, examples of which abound both in modern and historical society (Modern Conceptions of Freedom, 2013). On the contrary, Hobbes’ thought which is situated within an ethical framework and based on the concept that fundamental rights are never relinquished, is more convincing and contributes better to the larger picture of political theory.

In essence, Hobbes’ and Locke’s divergent accounts of rights reflect starkly contrasting visions of human nature what it implies for society. Whereas Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan represents the absolute authoritarian monarch, Locke integrates the common plebes into his liberalist theory of a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy. However, at the same time, it also must be recognised that Hobbes and Locke both shared a grounding in the classics that was similarly influential in forming their views on political philosophy and human behaviour (Rawls, 2009).

The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke and The Republic by Plato is historically significant philosophical and political theorists’ figures. John Locke greatly influenced the American Constitution based on ideas on liberal government. Plato expanded the ideas of his teacher Socrates and argued for justice and equality in a state system. Though these two theorists hold valuable ideas, they contain contrasting perspectives on how a government or city should be ruled and governed. While Locke believes that money/property is the greatest possession a human being can obtain, Socrates believes that no ruling or auxiliary class must possess money or property. This essay will mainly discuss how Locke’s perception of money and property is projected differently in comparison to Plato’s ideal just city. Locke outlines several components of government such as state of nature, state of war, property, slavery, commonwealth, etc., and although Plato does not explicitly outline or describe his viewpoint of each components, these themes are evident as he constructs the city in speech. In this essay, I will first discuss each theme of both Locke and Plato’s books and what ideas and values they share. Then I will compare and contrast their ideas to one another. Finally, I will relate these ideas to their position on possession of money and why their theories respectively lie in accordance with this notion. Locke’s belief of freedom of the individual under civil government holds the right to acquire money, while Socrates hold aristocratic ideals in a state of a just city in which money ruins the function of the state.

The value of property, which is often used interchangeably with money, appears in both theories of Locke and Plato, but hold different views on its significant and affect in society. Locke’s attempt to state the importance of money begins by first defining property. Locke’s whole purpose of this treatise was to suggest how a civil government can ensure protection and freedom upon the individual. Locke imposes that we must enter under a common agreement, “common wealth” in order to exert maximum personal freedom. First, Locke claims that all human beings are in a state of “perfect freedom” where everyone is equal and independent and not one person is deemed subordinate. Moreover, no one has the state of license to harm himself or another person(s). Since natural law continues to exist in the state of nature, one may be inclined to harm someone else if they commit a crime onto them. Therefore, Locke poses that civil government is the appropriate remedy for the repercussions of the state of nature. This continues while he discusses the state of war. Locke suggests one may seek revenge if someone has attempted to destroy mem with intention. Further, he states that one must not be in absolute power over another person because it entails slavery and infringes on one’s liberty. This is why Locke believes that in order to avoid the state of nature, the state of war and slavery one must enter into civil society where all individuals come to an agreement on its laws under civil government. This way, any disputes may be settled in accordance with this mediator, the law. One may question whether operating under a government holds one captive as a slave, in such that they must abide by and follow all rules set out by this authority. However, Locke sets this clear as he claims that the commonwealth cannot operate without the trust of the society. The government operates in accordance with the will of the people. If the government does not support the best interests of the people, they have the right to overthrow the government.

Locke introduces individual property and how one can attain property. He states that whether by natural reason or revelation, that nature is given to common mankind and that we must use nature to its advantage. In order to do so, one must acquire this common property into private property. Locke first claims that our first form of private property is our body, therefore if we use our body and perform labor towards common property, one can then claim it as their own property and gain propriety over it. Property is acquired through labor and resources. He uses an example of an apple on the tree. The apple tree is a common property to everyone but once a person picks the apple, it becomes his property because it required labor, the picking of the apple. Your body, which one’s property that is used in picking the apple, makes the apple private property. This applies to all common land, but he suggests that one must not take more than he will use because that would be selfish and unfair to the rest of society. Thus, one must not take up land unless it is being of good use to the individual. He poses that labor is what makes men distinct amongst one another and prevents disputes. Locke puts a lifespan on goods that are one’s property and this is where he introduces money. If every man cultivates more resources than he can use and what he doesn’t use, rots, then he would only take as much as he can us. He states that money, however, lasts forever and does not rot. Once you have money, nothing is spoiled and thus you can reproduce endlessly. This gives men the incentive to acquire large sums of money.

In chapter 9, Locke expands this notion and claims that those who accumulate money/property are driven into civil society in order to protect their property. He argues that those in the state of nature may be free and have the right to property, but the enjoyment of it is not secure and can most likely be intruded on by others. “For all beings king as much as he, every man is equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justice, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very insecure.” Therefore, to fully enjoy ones property and be content with one’s safety and security, they must be willing to cease their power to the dominion of others. This includes agreeing to be regulated by a common law that everyone in society abides by and forfeits his power to punish the crimes against the law and completely trust in legislative and executive powers of government to handle a dispute and provide peace and liberty to all its people.

Further, Locke outlines what consists of this commonwealth. He assigns separations of power under legislative and executive power. The legislative power legislates laws, the executive power enforces these laws, and the people of the state, hold the government accountable. In this civil government, no power rules over one another and no one oppresses. He states that though the legislative power is the supreme power and is the most significant part of every commonwealth. Their power is purpose should be to serve the good of its people. “It is a power that hates no other end but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy enslave or designedly to impoverish the subjects.” Moreover, the people have the power to overthrow the government into a new form if the current form does not comply with the good of society. In chapter 10, Locke, once again notes the importance of men’s property. He states that because the protection of the property is what drove individuals to enter society, their property must be protected regardless of any circumstances. “The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent.” It is evident that Locke’s account of property is significant in establishing a civil government that aims for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On the other hand, Socrates, Plato’s teacher, has a different view on how a just city should function and the role of money and property in society. The whole purpose of constructing the city in the speech was to define justice and injustice. While doing so, he unveils similar themes in contrast to Locke. Firstly, Socrates states the justice is good for its own sake and injustice is bad for its own sake. In order to prove this, he begins to construct the city in speech. He establishes a parallel between the city and the soul, if we can see justice in the city we are able to see in a person’s individual soul. Socrates argues that everyone has needs and thus each man must be given one certain task or job in this city in order to help and satisfy the needs of other men. These craftsmen are designated to one job because in doing so they are able to perfect their art and thus perform more efficiently. These people trade their labor in exchange for money, called wage earners of the city. “They sell the use of their strength and because they call their price a wage, they are, I suppose, called wage earners…” Glaucon then argues that this city, the city of sows, is missing out on the luxuries in life. Socrates introduces the “feverish city,” this city allows of luxuries, in which are not just necessities but include perfume, incense, cakes, etc. Socrates argues that these luxurious things in this city will cause war as people try to obtain them. While humans seek status, status inevitably requires war. Therefore, there must be guardians to maintain the city. However, guardians must not be chosen at random, but be chosen wisely and strategically. “Then the man who’s going to be a fine and good guardian of the city for us will in his nature be philosophical, spirited, swift, and strong.” Their education must require a lot of physical training as well as exercising the soul through poetry and music. However, these poems must be filtered so that they hear only what is good for a young guardian’s soul. The rulers of the city are to be chosen from the best of guardians, now recognized as auxiliaries or warriors (those who carry out the tasks dictated by guardians) because Socrates and Glaucon argue that the city cannot function without someone overseeing all these activities. Thus, guardians were required in this city in speech.

Consequently, the noble lie is introduced, which are stories told to the people of the city in order for it to function properly. The lie states that everyone in the city are brothers and sisters are founded underground and that each soul either consists of gold, silver or bronze and that they must not mix or collaborate with other metals other than their own, this is called the myth of the metals. In this myth is where classes are curated, but along with the three types of metals are parts of the soul; desire, spiritedness and reason. The different parts of the city are then categorized under these metals and souls. Guardians who rule the city are gold who carries the soul of reason, warriors or auxiliaries represent silver who is full of spirit, and the craftsmen of the city are bronze who carry the trait of desire. These three are part of the city. Socrates extends this further and argues because the guardian’s objective is to rule and maintain a just city, they must not hold property or money because if so, they would be more concerned in obtaining property or wealth and thus would not properly rule the city. “Whenever they’ll possess private land, houses, and currency, they’ll be householder and farmers instead of guardians, and they’ll become master and enemies instead of allies of the other citizens; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they’ll lead their whole lives far more afraid of the enemies within than those without.” Guardians must not possess desire in seeking otherwise, because according to Socrates, the just city is only just if each part preforms its respective function and its function only.

In Book 5, Socrates extends the discussions about guardians. Because his objective is to find justice in the city, he argues that men and women are both equal. Both men and women are capable of being guardians of the city. Therefore, their education must be the same and must require them to be de-eroticized from one another in order to prevent distraction and allows them to perform their job more efficiently. Now the problem with de-eroticizing the city is that no reproduction would occur because sexual tension is eliminated. Socrates then suggests that in order to ensure reproduction of the best guardians, the best guardian women and the best guardian men will engage in intercourse, not for pleasure, but solely for the purpose of reproducing the best offspring. Socrates proposes that sex festivals will occur, or rather a “rigged lottery”, because of the noble lie stating they are all brothers and sisters, this program will ensure that no inbreeding will occur by control who reproduces with whom. Socrates succeeds in diminishing all desires from the ruling classes as he believes it will ensure their best performance. Overall, in constructing this city in a speech he opposes and disagrees that the ruling classes must not possess money.

Locke and Socrates have contrasting political theories in correspondence to the purpose of this book. Locke believes that everyone must have personal freedom. With that, they can choose the jobs they wish to acquire, they can possess property and money, and are not held in subordination to any ruling class. However, Socrates on the other hand, completely controls all variables in the city in speech to achieve what he deems as equality and justice. He operates this city with an aristocratic form of governance. In this he chooses every person’s job and role in the city, he controls who becomes guardians, their education, their training, the stories they’re told, how they reproduce. He completely eliminates all their desires and freedoms.

In terms of slavery, Locke does not believe that a person should be enslaved to doing something demanded by a higher power and does not believe in subordination amongst one another. This is why the commonwealth is established so that all individuals in society agree on the laws. In comparison, Socrates creates classes amongst individuals. He establishes the city by 3 classes through gold being guardians, silver being auxiliaries, and bronze as craftsmen. In this, the craftsmen are enslaved by the ruling classes and that they must only do one and specialize in it, the auxiliaries are enslaved by the guardians to carry out their commands, and the guardians are enslaved the system.

On the topic of war, Socrates assigns warriors to take on specific tasks. Warriors are required to settle disputes amongst wage earners/craftsmen. As they attempt to acquire status through luxurious goods, when wars occur, the warriors are there to battle them. Locke settles this problem by assuring that when an individual enters into the commonwealth, the government serves as a mediator and will provide the proper punishment that is required as opposed to handling the problem on their own, as one might, in the state of nature.

For Locke, it is in a person’s freedom to acquire money and while people continue to accumulate large amounts of money, they then seek and require protection from the government. Locke’s purpose of the second treatise of government is to create a system of civil government that helps ensure peace and the pursuit of happiness. For Socrates; the purpose of creating the city in speech is to ensure a just society. To Socrates, a just society is everyone performing their duty and minding no one else’s business but their own. He believes no one should mix with other classes. His purpose in constructing the city in speech is not for individual happiness, but for the good of the city as a whole. This is evident when he states, “However, in founding the city we are not looking to the exceptional happiness of any one group among us but, as far as possible, that of the city as a whole.” Money should not be used by the ruling classes because if they gain desire in acquiring money, they are dabbling into the class of craftsmen, the bronze, who possess desire. In doing so, they would not be able to be governed and defend the city adequately and properly. Therefore, the guardians and auxiliaries are forbidden to possess and acquire money.

To conclude, these positions all relate back to the main purpose of their political theories. It is clear that their perception of the value of money reflects what they deem as best suited for their type of government or city. Locke’s purpose in the Second Treatise of Government is to create a commonwealth as a means of protecting one’s property and to fulfill the greater good of society. He believes in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the individual. Therefore, acquiring means is not a problem in this state of governance. While, Socrates, constructs a city in order to find justice by ensuring equality amongst women and men in an aristocratic state of governance. Socrates believes that no ruling or auxiliary should possess private property/money as acquiring such means would deter focus on their main role in the city, which is to rule and manage the city. Rather than fulfilling the happiness of the individual, he aims to fulfill what’s best for the city in speech.

In the seventeenth century, The Scientific Revolution brought light to people challenging previous ideas and thinking freely on the ideas of science. This was a new concept, as previously, the world ran on tradition, and authority was never to be questioned. However, this new idea of thinking freely inspired men everywhere to think for themselves and share new ideas. Soon, there was an eruption of a philosophical, social, and intellectual movement, during which, thinkers began to question old system of thinking and structures of government. This period is now known as the Age of Enlightenment, or Age of Reason.

There were astounding numbers of thinkers and writers all over the world during this period, publishing their works in an attempt to change the traditional thoughts and ideas of the world. Many well know philosophers came to light at this time, such as, Voltaire, Kant, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and countless others. Among these philosophers and writers were John Locke, a young, educated English man, and Olaudah Equiano, a former slave. Locke wrote and published his work, Two Treatises of Government in the late seventeenth century, at the beginning of the Age of Enlightenment. Equiano on the other hand, published his work, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, in the late eighteenth century, towards the end of the Age of Enlightenment, making their two works bookends of enlightenment. While Locke and Equiano wrote at two very different times of Enlightenment, and from two very different points of view, they each give us a unique account of the Enlightenment Era.

John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government is split into two parts. The first part, or the First Treatise is solely an attack on Patriarcha, a work by Sir Robert Filmer. One of Filmer’s major points argues that Adam had absolute authority over his children, which is passed down through generations, meaning that Kings have inherited their authority. Locke counters this idea by using support directly from scripture; “God says, Honour thy Father and Mother; but our Author (Filmer) contents himself with half, leaving out thy Mother.” Locke is saying that it is not possible for Adam to have had absolute authority because that idea only account for the father being the head. He then goes on to defend his point further by arguing that Filmer’s theory of divine right of kings is flawed because it implies that men are born enslaved to the King. Locke refuses to accept this and insists that all men are born free according to the State of Nature, which he further explains in the Second Treatise.

Locke states that in order to correctly understand Political Power, “we must consider what state all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of Perfect Freedom.” In this, he is referencing a State of Nature in which perfect freedom and equality are brought on by the Law of Nature. He argues that no man in this State of Nature must answer to any other man; everyone one is equal except for God. Locke also states that every man should, “preserve the rest of mankind, and may not unless it be to do just to an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to be the Preservation of the Life, the Liberty, Health, Limb, or Goods of another.” This means that because all men are equal and free according to Locke’s State of Nature, if a man does wrong to another, he believes that he is of higher importance, and breaks the Law of Nature. Therefore, if any man is to harm or take from another, he has placed himself into a State of War with the man whom he has harmed. Locke states that man may destroy man who creates war with him.

Locke also proposes the point that because of the Law of Nature, “The Natural Liberty of Man is to be free of any superior power on Earth.” This, however, proposes the question, of slavery. If all men are born free and equal, how did slavery come to be? Locke proposes the idea of the Perfect Condition of Slavery, in which he describes slavery as the State of War continued. Basically, this means that the only way a man would become a slave is if they enter a State of War with another, and willingly surrenders himself to spare his own life.

Locke also speaks, in the Second Treatise, of Property. He states that in the State of Nature, all men have the right to property of their own bodies and also the labor of their bodies. He suggests that civil society is created to protect one’s property, and because that is the duty of government, Locke states that, “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, … By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.” This means that if the government tries to take away, or destroy the property of the people, they have broken the Law of Nature and are now in a State of War, in which the people have control and the right to revolt against them in order to prevent tyranny.

In his Two Treatises of Government, John Locke expresses many ideas of how and why people, society, government, and the world function. These ideas have had a big impact on today’s society, and more specifically, the American Constitution, which adopts Locke’s theory of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. However, some of Locke’s points do seem fiction, and utopian, such as his idea that all men are free and equal, and that slavery only exists in a State of War.

Olaudah Equiano gives us a very different view of slavery. His book, The Interesting Narrative of the life of Olaudah Equiano, tells the story of slavery during the Enlightenment Era from a rare point of view. As many slaves at the time could not read or write, it is extraordinary that there is an account with such personal detail.

Equiano was an eleven-year-old boy living in modern day Nigeria, when he and his younger sister were kidnapped, sold to slave traders, and separated. He was placed on a ship that sailed across the Atlantic Ocean with hundreds of other enslaved Africans. It wasn’t long before Equiano was handed over to a chieftain who had two wives, and children. Equiano states that they were quite kind to him, especially one of the wives, who he looked at as a mother. Unfortunately, he accidentally kills one of his master’s chickens, and fears that he would be beaten, so he ran away. He speaks of how he was searched for by many and was fearful of the punishment he would receive if caught. Days passed, and Equiano was desperately hungry and sneaks into his master’s kitchen, where he falls asleep and is found by an older slave woman who takes him to his master. His master insisted that he was taken care of, and that no harm would come to him. However, soon after this, he was sold again.

After being taken away from his next master, a wealthy widow, Equiano is forced onto a slave ship. He speaks of the horrifying conditions on the boat, and even how he feared that he would be eaten by white men. He speaks of the poor treatment of slaves, and how he felt so low that he “wished for the last friend, death, to relieve” him. He recalls receiving beating for things such as not eating, and even speaks of seeing a man die as the result of flogging, and then thrown overboard. Although he is terrified of the white men, and believes them to be cruel, but he sees how they interact with one another and concludes that they are not born evil, but slavery made them that way.

Eventually the ship reaches Barbados where they are sold to slave traders. Equiano is put on a ship that takes him to Virginia, where he works on a plantation for many weeks. There, he is miserable, anxious, and constantly afraid. One day he sees another slave wearing an iron muzzle, and in the same home, a painting that seemed to follow him. He speaks of how these things frighten him because he believes them to be devices that the master uses for spying, showing us how little he knows of the technology at the time, and giving us a glimpse of his education level at the time.

Soon after, Equiano is purchased by a man named Michael Henry Pascal who was a lieutenant in the royal navy. Aboard his ship, Equiano had a much more pleasant experience than the previous ship. As they sailed to England, he had better food to eat, a place to sleep, and was even beginning to learn English. He made a friend, Richard, on board and overall had a better quality of life, however he was still hesitant and afraid of the white men and was relieved when they finally made it to England.

During the time that Equiano was in England, he was put in school, where he was baptized, and well educated. He was thankful for the people who he had met in England, and regretful of leaving them, but he was called back to sea with his master. While sailing up the Mediterranean, they made many stops, and Equiano speaks of the cheap fruits he enjoys, and the kindness of the people, saying, “The Spanish officers here treated our officers with great politeness and attention” He also met a man named Daniel Queen, who taught him many things, and became a father figure for him. But, as rumors of the war ending spread, Equiano was given away to Captain Doran.

Equiano was then sold to Mr. Robert King, who admired him for his hard work. Mr. King put Equiano in school and fitted him to be a clerk. Equiano writes about how King fed his slaves well, and many criticized him, but King believed that a slave who was well fed would do better work. This is much different that how Equiano was treated on the slave ship. Equiano was given much responsibility on the ship, but he also witnessed incidences such as the rape of a woman that angered him because he was unable to stop it.

Quite some time later, while in the West Indies, Equiano witnessed a free man, by the name of Joseph Clipson, become enslaved by a white man. It is at this point that he sees the cruel reality in the fact that he will not be free until he leaves the West Indies, as he states, “for such is the equity of the West Indian laws, that no free negro’s evidence will be admitted in their courts of justice. In this situation is it surprising that slaves, when mildly treated, should prefer even the misery of slavery to such a mockery of freedom? I was now completely disgusted with the West Indies, and thought I never should be entirely free until I had left them.” So, Equiano began selling items and saving money in order to be able to buy his freedom.

Eventually, Equiano and his captain set sail for Georgia, where he says, “worse fate than ever attended,” for him. One night he was beaten and left for dead by a drunken slave master, Doctor Perkins. He is then taken to jail by police in Georgia, but when he does not return to the ship, his captain goes to find him. He has Equiano treated by doctors, and tries to file a lawsuit against Doctor Perkins, but is informed that he would have no case because Equiano is black. Equiano slowly recovers and returns to work, still saving up for his freedom.

In the last chapter of his book, Equiano speaks of a voyage that was meant to head to Montserrat, but instead goes to Georgia and St. Eustacia. This was troubling for Equiano because he planned to get the rest of the money intended to buy his freedom in Montserrat, but instead, he sells a few more items in order to obtain the money and his freedom. Eventually, Equiano was able to buy purchase his freedom for forty pounds.

After reading works from two very different men, at two ends of the Age of Enlightenment, it is interesting to see such different struggles over such similar issue. While Locke and Equiano both struggled to understand some ways of the world, Locke viewed issues such as slavery from the outside, while Equiano gave an insider’s perception. However, both men, in this time of free thinking and change, wrote to inspire, and to inflict change. But how do the works of these two men stand up against Emmanuel Kant’s traditional definition of Enlightenment?

Emmanuel Kant, in his work, What is Enlightenment, defines Enlightenment as transforming into a state of thinking for yourself rather than following someone else’s guidance. John Locke’s work ties into this because he is constantly challenging traditional ways of thinking and forming his own ideas and solutions for real life issues. Olaudah Equiano’s work relates to this as well, because though he was a slave from a very early age, constantly thought for himself and sought out education. He also purchased his own freedom and, quite literally, became his own person. Although Kant’s argue of enlightenment focuses mainly on one thinking for themselves on the topic of religion, Locke and Equiano fit the description of the traditional definition and expand on it, which is what Enlightenment is all about.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Equiano, Olaudah. and Paul Edwards. The Life of Olaudah Equiano, or, Gustavus Vassa the African, 1789. Dawsons of Pall Mall, 1969.
2. Locke, John. and Peter Laslett. Two Treatises of Government: a Critical Edition. Cambridge University Press, 1988.

John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have very opposite ideals as to how society and politics could best be run. While Locke believes in the state of nature, Rousseau thinks that general will is best. I will explain the differences between Locke and Rousseau’s ideas and argue that both have valid and invalid points to make a society work.

John Locke has an ideal that justice is in terms of the state of nature. In his writings he addresses that political power should be defined based on person’s natural instinct. In the Second Treatise of Government, Locke states, “…we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke, sec. 4, pg 8). This is arguing that each individual has a right to themselves and everything they have worked for is their own, as long as it does not exceed the laws of nature. Locke also states that each person needs to rely on themselves and not others, however later in his text he explains the role of a parent. A child is born free; however, they do not understand reason, so the parent must guide them, like a monarch, until the child attains the state of freedom (Locke, pg 30-42). While freedom is a core value Locke uses throughout the Second Treatise of Government, he also explains the relevance of equality.

Two, out of the three, major laws of nature according to Locke are freedom and equality. As I have explained above, everyone is born free, aside from the fact that the parent must teach the child until they understand reason. Locke believes that all are to be seen as equals and that one person should not be above another, and everyone is born to all the same advantages of nature (Locke, sec. 4, pg 8). He stresses that people have equality and are free to do as they please; however, they do not have power over another. Due to everyone being equal and having freedom, this does not give a person permission to abuse others and if a crime is committed, an equal punishment must be recieved. In his chapter on the state of nature; he address the invasion of a person rights from another, “And that all may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind… whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree…” (Locke, sec. 7, pg 9). This insinuates that if you commit a crime violating another’s state of nature, you will receive a punishment of equal consequence. Locke also goes to explain that aside from freedom and equality; the other main principles associated with natural law is property.

Locke explains that property is an upholding requirement to have the natural law work. Property is a means of work and Locke stretches the idea that due to us owning our own bodies, the labor in which the body performs comes with that (Locke, sec. 27, pg 19). He uses an apple as an example to explain that the labor you put in determines what is yours, however you should not be taking more than you need or you are then taking from others. Locke argues, “He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples, had thereby a property in them, they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look, that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his sharem and robbed others” (Locke, sec. 46, pg 28). A main point he tries to contend is that it is important that you put in the effort for your goods, however it is selfish and dishonest if you take more than you need and take goods away from others. He later brings in the factor of money. Money allows for accumulation of wealth without violating the no-spoilage rule. However, money brought about consequences which do technically violate the natural law. Money in Locke’s view violates the state of nature by; “This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value of gold and silver…” (Locke, sec. 50, pg 30). This is signifying that their now a factor of wealth and economic inequality, creating a violation of the law of equality. While Locke advocates for a politics based on individual standing, Rousseau has a different view.

Rousseau on the other hand has a view that general will is how society should be run. The general will is more based off the people as a group. In the laws of general will the rules are implemented by the people during gatherings, where there are no representatives. Rousseau argues, “…so that each person, in making a contract as it were, with himself, finds himself doubly committed, first, as a member of the sovereign body in relation to individuals, and secondly as a member of the state in relation to the sovereign” (Rousseau, pg. 62). A main part of living by the general will, is being a part of a sovereignty, where each citizen is equal and their voices are equally heard. Instead of having representatives the people appoint an executive body that enforces the general will. The executive body according to Rousseau, “We have seen that the legislative power belongs, and can only belong, to the people… that executive power cannot belong to generality of the people… therefore outside the province of the sovereign which can act only to make laws” (Rousseau, pg 101). The legislative branch is the will, while the executive branch is the law makers. While the general will, which is represented by the legislatures, is a main focus for Rousseau, he also established a lawgiver. The lawgiver is an appointed person who is ungoverned and unbiased, who enforces the laws for the good of the people (Rousseau, pg 84-88). However the people have say over whether or not the government has broken the contract. The government can be dissolved and resistance is justified if the executives overturn the established legitimate process or the legitimate or executive violated individual rights.

When reading both Locke and Rousseau I seemed to agree and disagree with different aspects of their theories. Starting with Locke, I tend to agree more with his policies over Rousseau’s. Locke stuck out to me more due to his ideals that the three main aspects of the natural law are based upon equality, freedom and property. I tended to agree with his ideas that each individual is entitled to the property that they have earned, however one should not take more than he or she needs; insinuating that you would be taking property useful to another. However, I disagreed with his contradictory views of freedom. He argues that slavery is unlawful and enslaving others is enslaving oneself, but later in the Second Treatise of Government he argues that slavery is ok in terms of a capital offense (Locke, pg 17-18). I also have mixed opinions on the law of nature when it comes to individual reason. I think that if a person does wrong to you, you can give back equal punishment to an extent. My problem with this reasoning is one might think that someone is in the wrong, when the other person believes they are in the right and the other is wrong. This can lead to conflict and there is not a median in Locke’s society to establish who is correct and what a reasonable punishment would be. While I agreed more on Locke’s policies when it came to individual statues, I found flaws in his reasoning behind not having an established government to keep the peace and relying on the hope that all would understand and obey the laws of nature. I do find aspects of Rousseau to be reasonable, however I disagree with more of his principles than I did Locke.

When considering Rousseau’s The Social Contact, I agreed with his ideals, but some of his concepts made me question his thinking. According to Rousseau the general will is upheld by the people, while the government upholds the laws and freedom. I like that the people have more of a say in what they believe the laws should be to uphold a society that is beneficial to all. I find this to be flawed however, while thinking about a larger society like today, this would not work due to how many people we have in individuals states. Rousseau’s ideal society seems to be smaller, where each voice is heard during the gathering and are each thinking of laws beneficial to all, while in today’s society we have to many people to have a gathering as well as have a total consensus from everyone. He argues, “…that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body, which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free… secures him against all personal dependence” (Rousseau, pg 64). According to The Social Contact you will either obey the general will of the people or be punished, as well as insinuating the only way the general will works is thinking as a total group rather than an individual. I disagree with this because while having enforced ruled can be helpful, forcing someone to agree with the population and not think or be recognized as an individual is demeaning.

Locke and Rousseau are both brilliant philosophers who have helped to shape today’s society. Locke focuses more on an individual standpoint, while Rousseau a group of people as one. While each individual has valid points, they both make arguments that would have flaws in today’s society. I tend to agree more with Locke, when thinking on an individual level, and I agree with Rousseau having more of an established government. I feel as though if they were to combine their views a high functioning society could be possible.

In this day and age, people are living one of the most depressing and demoralizing fragment of the 21st century. Because of this dark and difficult time, it’s crucial to understand why we are looking through the prism of pessimism and that’s exactly why this essay has place to be. Philosophers like Pico de Mirandola, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were all studying humankind and its origins for years, but they had their own particular visions on this topic. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes expressed openly his beliefs in monarchy and in the absence of free will. He often mentioned that humans are not capable of proper functioning without authority. According to Hobbes, this lack of power could lead to chaos. Pico de Mirandola clearly believed in hierarchy and believed that humans were created to worship God and appreciate his kindness towards them. John Locke had a more modern approach and preached about free will of individuals, consent and civil rights. On the contrary to Locke, Rousseau often said that men are insatiable, self-centered and amoral creatures that live in inequality. After studying all of their treatises, I came to the conclusion that John Locke is the most optimistic philosopher out of the four candidates.

Optimism is an important concept that is explained on a mental level. In order to understand the meaning of this notion in a thorough manner, I decided to search it in a dictionary. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an optimist is “a person who is inclined to be hopeful and to expect good outcomes : someone who is given to optimism”. This person is focusing his attention on the brighter side and looking at the world through a prism of positivity.

John Locke is an important figure in modern philosophy because he is one of the authors of liberal democracy. He truly believed in theory of divine rights and in the importance of natural rights. Just like the other philosophers, Locke was expressing his thoughts with the help of state of nature. In the beginning of the course, Sean Elliott established that state of nature is a primordial human condition before any political intervention. Because of the ambiguity of the term, it could be a hypothetical or a real scenario. Locke often implied that state of nature is like a power vacuum because it’s liveable for a short term. While it may seem as a doubtfully positive statement, it is partially one. This philosopher truly believed in balance and in consent. For him, in order to survive, there should be a mutual agreement between people and the government where both parties would know their boundaries. If this agreement would be compromised, people could overthrow the government if their natural rights wouldn’t be respected. According to the British philosopher, our natural rights in state of nature were life, liberty and property. By saying this, the philosopher indicates that humans have a conscience of their environment that is helpful in solving problems in an appropriate way. As we can see already, he wasn’t a believer in utopia, but his beliefs in natural rights and his individualistic approach hinted at hope and great expectations. As already stated, Locke’s version of state of nature was about co-operation. As Sean Elliott explained, it is a condition where no one has any sort of superiority over anyone else on a jurisdictional level. This proves furthermore that Locke has hope in humanity and is being optimistic about their possible future behaviour and evolution. Stating Mr. Elliott once again, John has a “romantic pastoral view”. This means that his point of view was amiably peaceful and beautiful. It makes sense why his motto in life was “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. In my opinion, he was some sort of rationalist dreamer who believed in peaceful society, but never allowed himself to bathe in this idealistic philosophy in order to stay cautious of all the possible outcomes that humans could hypothetically experience.

Thomas Hobbes is another well-known philosopher who was very vocal about his beliefs. Some of them were even similar to Locke because both of them believed in the functional society in the absence of the government, but the main difference between them was their approach to the subject. While Locke was mainly focusing on the bright ideas and the benefits, Hobbes clearly made an emphasis on chaos and violence. Thomas Hobbes didn’t believe in free will because he supposed that we’re simply programmed machines who respond to pleasure and pain; therefore, our behaviour is extremely predictable. Instead of thinking that individuals are conscious and mindful creatures, this theorist was convinced that we just rationalize our aspirations and that our personal experiences give us future appetite and aversion. In his famous novel, Leviathan, he focuses on the idea of aversion and justifies his idea of the absence of free will. “And it is called deliberation; because it is putting an end to the liberty we had of doing, or omitting, according to our own appetite, or aversion”. This quote is directly taken from the book and it proves that once deliberation comes to an end, freedom of choice or of movement is over as well. By analyzing Hobbes’ theory, we can clearly notice a lot of pessimistic approaches towards human beings and his disbelief in their nature. He doesn’t acknowledge individuals’ rights, compares humans to biomechanical creatures and supposed that human society is artificial as a whole.

Another philosopher worth talking about is Pico de Mirandola who contrasts the previous ones mainly because of his beliefs influenced by religion and because of his lack of theory on this subject. Pico was a part of the Renaissance philosophy that focused on rationality, logic and reason. He was a humanist and truly believed in free will. For him, this new philosophy was a collection of values that honoured the potential of Man. From the start, it might seem idyllic and promising, but the deeper we analyze, we come to a realization that he doesn’t worship all the humans and that he degrades those who make mistakes. In Pico’s Oration on the Dignity of Man, he states that “Thou shalt have the power to degenerate into the lower forms of life, which are brutish. Thou shalt have the power, out of thy soul’s judgement, to be reborn into the higher forms, which are divine”. Mirandola positions the humans in the middle of the hierarchy and explains that they’re just intermediary creatures that are able to upgrade to the divine level or downgrade to the Animals. In my opinion, this is an ignorant and depreciating point of view on human beings. He’s discrediting their worth that they have on their own and has the need to compare them to other creatures to give them some kind of value. I believe that his original intentions might have been sincere and thoughtful, but the outcome of it is pessimistic towards the individuals.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the famous Genevan philosopher, is the last candidate that I would like to evaluate. It’s not a secret that Rousseau was particularly skeptical and doubtful about progress. He compared the state of nature to a nasty and obnoxious trap where cruel human beings were forced to exist. In his book, The Second Discourse, he expresses vividly his thoughts on the origins of inequality and on the human beings’ attitudes. This radical savant loves to deconstruct his way of thinking to ensure the right perception by his audience. According to him, with time, individuals develop passions that later lead to this internal greediness that devours the human being. “Finally, consuming ambition, the fervor to raise one’s relative fortune less out of true need that in order to place oneself above others, inspires in all men a base inclination to harm each other” Rousseau perceives humans as greedy, manipulative, insatiable and amoral creatures. He thinks that this outcome is caused by the creation of private property. This concept generated vanity and ego that ruined individuals and made them forget that they were originally created to rule over their fellow brothers: animals. Rousseau never discredited human’s worth, but he showed how corrupted and ravenous they became once they encountered civilization.

All things considered, without a doubt, Pico de Mirandola, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke brought a lot of interesting ideas to the domain of political studies. Even though there’s a lot of disagreements and contradistinctions, they all shared their truth with the world. By comparing all of their doctrines and beliefs, I can affirm that John Locke is the most optimistic philosopher we studied because of his hope in human nature, his realistic yet admirable approach to life and his modern point of view.

Nature vs. nurture is an age old debate dating back to the 1800’s. There have been hundreds of psychologists, scientists, religious leaders and even ordinary people who argue their view on the subject. John Locke was one of these people, a renowned British philosopher, who is best known for his use of the phrase of “tabula rasa.” His belief, that the mind at birth is a blank slate on which experience writes on, helped in forming the idea now known as empiricism. However, in the centuries following the origination of Locke’s argument, there have been countless arguments made against him in both the realms of religion and science.

Religion in and of itself is a controversial topic, people believing different theories on the purpose of life, where we came from and where we go after death. However, the majority of these religions do agree that there is some kind of life before and after death. Many Christians have faith that we lived as spirits before we were born on Earth. They believe that these spirits developed talents and gained knowledge, created friendships and made promises before they received their mortal bodies. Buddhists believe not only in the existence of a pre-mortal life, but that it is critical in the development and ultimate salvation of people. They argue the idea of samsara, that spirits are in a cycle of death and rebirth and that through the knowledge and enlightenment they receive in their previous lives, they can eventually achieve nirvana. Muslims believe that man is a pontifical creature, simply serving as a bridge between the pre-mortal and post-mortal existence. A famous Muslim thinker, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, preaches that humans are not made by atoms, but rather that they are “metaphysical and transcendental beings” that cannot be understood by mankind. Combined, there are about 6 billion people with these beliefs in the world today. Simply the number of people who have strong belief in their own religion are enough to question Locke’s argument. Even using his own proof of introspection, when looking inwards, these people strongly believe that they are divinely created and that their spirits not only existed but had knowledge before coming to Earth.

While there are a large number of people who believe in religion, there are also many who rely solely on the testable and visible proof of science. While religion and science usually contrast in their ideas, there are arguments proving the existence of innate ideas on both sides. Many experiments and theories have been created through science against Locke’s beliefs including the Blue Brain Project at EPFL. This project studied the rodent brain and created reconstructions and stimulations of it, which were then related to the human mind. The researchers found small clusters of neurons in the “neocortex interconnect” that provide a set of simple rules. These clusters are looked at as building blocks that contain our innate knowledge, for example our conscious of right and wrong. If these connections and circuits had only been formed through experience and sensation, as Locke suggests, basic human values would be considerably different from each other, which is inaccurate. This biological evidence proves that the connectivity within these clusters must have been programmed in advance. Next to math, science is the closest type of study that can be falsified. It has been proven through this type of study, naturalistic observation and experimentation that our minds do have innate ideas and thoughts.

The argument between science and religion is another topic, however they both do agree on the fact that humans and animals have inherent principles. By using either introspection to question your own beliefs or by simply looking at the scientific data, it is obvious that the mind is not “tabula rasa,” and that it has been previously written on. Of course, experience is essential in the development of our mind however it is not the only source of personality and individuality. Whether you believe in pre-mortal spirits or the genetic code in our brains, it is undeniable that we are born with natural ideas, values and knowledge.

to suggest that Locke gets half the story right on the issue of tolerance. The arguments for and against tolerance are based on the beliefs and opinions of the citizens who are supposed to live within these regulations. In the case of toleration however, not only did Locke himself reject divisive scriptural interpretations but, because of their fair discord, he argued that they had no place in public debates. In the event of intolerance, he calls for the broadest and most general defense of exclusion to use secular arguments. Why is that barely halfway? Not only does public reason involve arguments which attempt to appeal broadly, but it also constitutes public reasoning. Public reasons are not only public reasoning. These matters are not to be determined by the government. In only one situation, the public plays an active part in building public reason: the revolution.

In Locke, natural law determines the content of public reason. This means there are moral boundaries to which public policy is acceptable. Now you might like to take this to say that the principle of Locke’s common purpose is not created by the public but rather contained in natural law. However, the doctrine of resistance is that it is private citizens who judge when natural laws are infringed, acting as public raisonneurs. Although Locke believes that we all have access to similar very common public-good intuitions, it can not therefore be applied globally without public opinion that can argue from the public perspective.

The state of Locke’s nature is governed by natural laws. There is no linguistic anarchy or fundamental moral subjectivism in Locke’s state of affairs and indeed conflict. The assumption that reality and the protection of morality belong to individuals and not to society is the product of divergent moral evaluation and judgment. A lack of a common moral principle, apart from the civil society, is not the result of human error or deficiency. As the moral point of reference for evaluating action is God’s law, the laws of nature. Natural law, by definition,’ instructs any human being who wishes but to consult him that being fairly and individually, no person can harm others in his life, in safety, in independence and in possession,’ and Locke is still pessimistic about his willingness and ability to seek reason. There is still room for disagreement. Natural law also offers a theoretical basis for judging both private and public actions. In the nature of these decisions, each individual is therefore responsible for administering and applying the no harm principle. It causes discomfort and sometimes tension, because in our own situation we are not good at judging. We have established the government to implement nature laws more systematically, rationally and fairly than it is possible to do in the state of nature. This then is the confidence which the governors place in their hands. It is a trust which can be broken and the very reason that civil society is joining disappears if abused. There is a right of resistance to the possibility of breaking the trust. When a state loses its confidence, the Constitution it governed is revoked. There is no administration and as they see fit, the population can create another constitution. But what’s the truth about it? How do people re-setthemselves by these mechanisms? The first step in this cycle is for the government to really surpass its confidence. Unlike Hobbes, the issue, who will rule, was deeply troubled.It can not be a delegated or impartial judge in this case, for that judge would be inferior to the sovereign and so supreme. Then the question of who judges is simply pushed back one step. For many thinkers at the time any authority that could limit a sovereign must entail a logical reductio ad infinitum.

On a number of occasions Locke says that there is no judge on earth but only appeal to heaven. This appeal is not a vague appeal to providence or divine intervention rather it is an appeal to moral standards rather than legal ones. For he eventually says that of course someone must judge even if there is no official judge: ‘The people shall judge. The people judge whether the government breaks the trust. But what does this mean? What does this mean? How do the people judge, actually? And why does Locke need an appeal to heaven, if the men become judges?

Human consciences have to determine if basic constitutional provisions are or were not broken, according to the individual’s decision. But the moral conscience is controlled by the interests of people, not by the desires of the individual. Individuals are considered worthy and expected to work to maintain society even when they are in a state of nature. Locke holds a realistic view of the common good. Moreover, constitutional dissolution does not mean that people dissolve like a corporate organisation: the power given to society by every individual when he has entered it can never return once again to the individual while society remains, but always stays in the community. No court, government or constitution; only people rely on their private judgment on public law. We are all asked to think as if we were representatives of a fictional Constitutional Convention or as an individual in moments of political crisis or social unrest.

This question (“Who shall judge?”) cannot mean that there is no judge at all: for where there is no judicature on earth, to decide controversies amongst men, God in heaven is judge. He alone, it is true, is judge of the right. But everyman is judge for himself, as in all other cases, so in this, whether another hath put himself into a state of war with him, and whether he should appeal to the supreme Judge

It is then clear that it is in the hands of the people to decide when a revolution is required. However, how do we understand that people get it right or even when such a judgment is made if at times of dissolution there is no institution for which to speak or represent the people? Ian Shapiro argues that only in the historical fact that a majority rises to throw away a tyrant can the answer be found. The actions of the majority who talk of the people make judgment de facto. Locke sometimes seems to have a de facto argument. This is not the case. In replying to his objection that his doctrine was a permit for constant upheavals and revolutionary activities, Locke responded that people are, in fact, very reluctant to engage in revolution and that is only to be counted on if things are really bad. Even if this were justified empirical generalization, however, it can not be seen as a justification for the revolution as the brute fact that a majority of people are willing to engage in revolutionary action. It seems to be the same political free pass as Hobbes does to the government when it works on behalf of the people. Nevertheless, Locke is pained to explain the reasons for refusing. There are very specific circumstances that contradict the contract and opposition is only justified when these circumstances arise. Whilst it is true that only people have the right to judge if the circumstances prevail, the people can also be mistaken. There are good reasons for the downfall of a government and bad reasons for it, even if there is no power on earth to judge it. there are good reasons. The appeal to heaven therefore requires everyone to seek their personal consciences in order to see if the reasons for resistance are good. What’s good in this case? They’re reasons for public opinion. It is a violation of the public good that speaks for reasons. Fostering political revolt and private feuds would not be a legitimate reason to resist even if it were possible to win a majority. It’s not how many people can be convinced that resistance is legitimate. It’s why you have resistance. While it is possible to imagine why the criteria for public good would fail, there is also no designated authority on earth but the people themselves to assess whether reasons are correct or unsuccessful. The appeal to Heaven then becomes euphemistic and not forceful. Locke’s case for revolution demonstrates that the people who reason from the point of view of community hold a legitimate judgement. Although acknowledging that people frequently disagree with the nature of natural law, Locke’s natural law theory postulates an opportunity to see social questions from a pubic point of view, which is the foundation for logic itself. Because people judge outside all political institutions that might serve their will, the people should decide by possible reasons that they support.

Conclusion

Political justification refers to reasons, premises and claims made by a political community. The Hobbes and Locke debates show that social explanations have been built and not identified with the introduction of pluralism, although they are shared. This is most evident but most troublesome in Hobbes too. Hobbes realized that people would rely on their private perception of right and wrong, good and bad without some common moral vocabulary to speak about and explain public policy. Public motive is the public’s intent, which is something we are all justified in doing. The collective motive was defined by Locke as a separate state and a potential counter weight or criticism of state power. The morally authoritative judge of political legitimacy is the public reason in this cases. Its power is to be convincing, not to be coercive. Therefore, in the views and desires of people, we do not necessarily find social justification prepared. These may be deeply divided, disagreeable, mistaken or biased and finally there may be no apparent public reason when dealing with some questions. Whereas Locke thought it was true for most of the religious doctrines. Locke believed that social explanations could be offered for fundamental questions of public law. Nonetheless, these explanations had to be identified, explained, articulated and defended. The collective reasoning and statement process revealed these explanations. To Locke, logic will show us what we all have right to do, but only those who’ will, but who will read it.’ The natural law is behind Locke’s image. Moreover, while natural law is the source from which citizens derive arguments and reasons for resistance, justifications shall be sent to the persons who in this case are the final judge and jury. In very small and special circumstances, Locke conceived of the public as a judge. The people take on the role of judges only in times of serious constitutional crisis and political decline. Every citizen is asked at these times to assess claims and arguments from a community point of view. These are the times where people really exist. In reality the efforts to express and engage in public discourse constitute a nation. Yet citizens have a local jurisdiction, not a representative one. Although Locke gives people a very powerful role in moments of crisis, in the everyday life of a political community they play almost no role. I have tried to focus the debate on the role of the public as a judge in this short survey of the public-reason history of Hobbes and Locke. The current debate on public cause is often dominated by the question of what is a public cause or not. For instance, there is a lot of debate as to whether calls for religious arguments or intuitions can be public reasons. This strategy appears to be a perfect court exercise in which we can analyze and question whether the concrete points brought forward in a particular public sphere can be discussed and genuinely communicated. It took a different route in this paper. I have stressed that it is primarily a responsibility of the public, rather than a number of reasons, to judge right from wrong in the public arena. This point of reference allows the general public to understand how in fact, some publicly justify the fact that a public’s actual shares are justified for significant reasons, while others also apply to public reasoning procedures under conditions where there are no common or overlapping substantive reasons, i.e. where there are deep and unambiguous reasons. In other words. Although our views of sovereignty allow for a more nuanced conception of limitation than Hobbes and Locke can find (particularly in the form of judicial reviews), the issue of ‘ Who should Judge? ‘ remains the case. The people have to be our answer.

Bibliography

1. Gerard J. Postema, ‘Public Practical Reason: Political Practice’, in Nomos XXXVII: Theory and Practice, ed. Ian Shapiro and Judith Wagner DeCew (New York: New York University Press, 1995)
2. Duncan Ivison, ‘The Secret History of Public Reason: Hobbes to Rawls’, History of Political Thought 18, no. 1 (1997), 126–47
3. Stephan Macedo, Liberal Virtues: Citizenship, Virtue, and Community in Liberal Constitutionalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)
4. Jeremy Waldron, ‘Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism’, in Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–1991
5. Gerard J. Postema, ‘Public Practical Reason: An Archeology’, Social Philosophy and Policy 12 (1995), 43–86
6. David Gauthier, ‘Public Reason’, Social Philosophy and Policy 12, no. 1 (1995), 19–42
7. John Rawls, Political Liberalism, paperback ed. (New York: Colombia University Press, 1996)
8. Jürgen Habermas, ‘Reconciliation through the Public Use of Reason’, Journal of Philosophy 92, no. 3 (1995), 109–131
9. vison, ‘The Secret History of Public Reason: Hobbes to Rawls’; Philip Pettit, Made with Words: Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008)
10. John Gray, ‘Pluralism and Toleration in Contemporary Political Philosophy’, Political Studies 48, no. 10 (2000), 323–33
11. William E. Connolly, Pluralism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005)
12. homas Hobbes, Leviathan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 128
13. David Johnston, ‘Plato, Hobbes, and the Science of Practical Reasoning’, in Thomas Hobbes and Political Theory, ed. Mary Dietz (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1990), 37–54
14. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003

In John Locke’s book The Second Treatise of Government, he expresses the importance of property rights in regard to its reflexiveness toward labor. With property rights, others are able to own different things with full ownership and use it towards their own advantage however they would like. Thereby, Locke demonstrates that labor demonstrates the legitimacy of one’s possessions even if the Earth is held by the commons. On the other hand, Socrates would disagree with Locke’s idea of the importance of a property. Socrates argues that in a just society, it is essential to prohibit the ruling and auxiliary classes the use of money. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates stresses that rulers are required in order to maintain a just society. However, the reason why Socrates would disagree with Locke’s approval of money and property rights is due to the fact that money and property are a distraction from building a just society by taking away the attention from things that are purposeful. If rulers were to obtain property, they would be abusing their power and consequently begin ruling for their own gain rather than for the sake of the good for the entire city. Overall, the main contrasting points between these two books involve the opposing values Locke and Socrates place on money. On one hand, Locke believes that money is valuable since it is a reward for man’s labor. On the other hand, Socrates would not approve of the existence of money signifies selfishness and immoderation within society. These contrasting ideas are demonstrated in regards to taking in the world’s gift of nature for one’s own advantage, different views on how a just society should perceive money, as well as an overall different purpose for each book being written. Thereby, the purpose of both of these books written by two philosophers’ perspectives refer to their contrasting ideas on illustrating how a state should be ruled.

There are two differentiating sides in regards to taking the earth’s gifts of nature for one’s own advantage. On one hand, John Locke would argue that the importance of money and owning possessions are means of placing individual value towards something everyone has equal access to in nature. Thereby, the possessions one obtains is a reward for the labor one performs. Locke structures his argument on a property by referring to the idea that God has created man equally where all men are offered with the same privileges in nature. Thereby, the only thing a man truly owns is the labor that he performs. Thus, to place ownership on something whether this may be an object or a piece of land, one must be able to perform labor work to gain a profit so they are able to pay for the things they desire. According to Locke’s idea of individual property, “In the beginning, before the desire of having more than man needed […] or a little piece of yellow metal […] yet the same plenty was still left to those who would use the same industry” (Locke s.37). In this passage, Locke refers back to the beginning state before the stirrings of human desire for possession. It was before the invention of money, symbolized by a little piece of yellow metal’ being gold to represent the form of money in the past. Money allows man to gather more than he needs as long as he produces through his own labor. In regards to nature, Locke argues that a person may only be able to obtain as many things as they can reasonably use towards their own advantage. In chapter 5 section 45, he discusses man using nature’s gifts towards their own personal gain and obtained by the use of labor. Specifically, he states that “labor […] gave a right of property wherever anyone was pleased to employ it […] Men contented themselves with what unassisted nature offered to their necessities” (Locke s.45). To explain this quote, Locke demonstrates that the purpose of labor is to gain property in order to fulfill one’s necessities which may include food or shelter in order to survive. Considering that God created everyone equally, the things that one owns sets one man apart from another as well as the labor that they produce in order to obtain these things. Thereby, the labor a man performs exclusively belongs to man when he removes something from nature through hard work and no longer becomes a common property of mankind. Thereby, the importance of property earned by money according to Locke is that anyone can attain anything they want as long as they are able to work and obtain the things that they deserve. With that being said, one of the reasons why Locke condones the idea of money is the reason money is a reward of labor. Although nature is accessible to everyone, the labor performed by man demonstrates the only true gift a man owns considering everyone in society is viewed as equal according to Locke.

On the other hand, Socrates has other circumstances in regards to taking the gifts of nature God has offered to mankind. Socrates would disagree with Locke’s purpose of money and possessions as it acts as a distraction from constructing a just society. In Book 4, Socrates and Adeimantus discuss how money is less valuable than nature. Thereby, in order for a man to fulfill his soul’s purpose, he must eliminate the distraction of money in his life. Socrates informs Adeimantus that “with the entire city growing thus and being fairly founded we must let nature assign to each of the groups its share of happiness” (Plato s.421c). To summarize, Socrates demonstrates how eliminating the distraction of money assists man in being able to focus on what they are naturally suited for which will help benefit the city to become more good and just. However, this can only occur if the individual is properly educated on the importance of being selfless and protecting the city for the sake of goodness in one’s soul. Thus, children should always be surrounded with good role models whereas they will grow old to also become good examples for the next generation to follow onwards. In relation to sustaining good role models, Socrates expresses the importance of the goal of the city where everyone is happy doing what they are naturally inclined to do. By doing so, proper education taught towards the youth teaches them what is means to be a just individual in society. In regards to the importance of education, Socrates states “the city, if correctly founded, must also be completely good […] then wise, courageous, moderate, and just” (Plato s.427). Thereby, the presence of money does not belong in Socrates’ definition for his ideal vision of constructing the city. Rather, the virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and being just is what Socrates argued to be valued more than the importance of money. In regards to taking advantage of nature for one’s own possessions, nature remains untouched as it is forbidden by Socrates to own any possessions. In order to maintain a just society, a guardian must be a good role model and not promote the idea of obtaining objects to fulfill one’s own vices as it becomes a distraction from making the majority of the city happy. In turn, this would mean using money is not a determining factor of the goodness of society.

From an opposing stance, Locke argues for a state of liberty and equality rather than restriction where money is something that everyone must earn after performing their labor. However, it is still important for him to consider that one must be able to control themselves along with the things that they own by following the government’s laws. Locke specifically states that “reason, which is that law teaches all of mankind […] that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” (Lock s.6). Hence, Locke argues that it is ok for a man to demonstrate a free will and obtain his own possessions as it presents the idea man is an independent being yet, an equal within society. Although being equal, this does permit man to turn against one another by robbing him from the possessions he owns. In order to ensure that crimes can be prevented, Locke suggests that natural law demonstrates how mankind must not steal or hurt another man. In regards to trusting one’s judgment, he states that “For the Law of Nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world […] and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders; and if anyone in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, everyone may do so” (Plato s.7). To explain, Locke does believe in a democratic state, although he also believed that there should be limits by using punishments to prevent any wrongdoings. Thus, a democratic government is necessary whereas a balance between free will and punishment is put into place to maintain order. In regards to the topic of free will and money, earning money is a result of free will due to producing labor on one’s behalf. As a result, money is a necessity to Locke as it earns the right to property and man’s own independence within society.

From contrasting views in The Republic, Socrates often refers to how a man should not be allowed to have access to his own property as this creates corruption within building a just society. Specifically, Socrates in Book 3 suggests that owning property should not be permitted due to the fact that this leads to immoderation and unequal distribution of happiness. Referring to the guardians, “Whenever they’ll possess private land, houses, and currency, they’ll be householders and farmers instead of guardians, and they’ll become masters and enemies instead of allies of the other citizens; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against” (Plato s.471 a-b). To summarize, Socrates refers to the guardians as figures that must not focus on giving into their own vices by obtaining any possessions. Thereby, their life’s purpose is not to obtain property for their own satisfaction out of selfishness. Rather, they must focus on maintaining a just society by fulfilling the roles of a guardian. In Book 3, Socrates discusses with Adeimantus how the guardians should live a life free of possessions considering that the possessions a guardian obtains can act as a distraction from fulfilling their role in society. During this conversation, Adeimantus questions Socrates in regards to how a guardian can truly be happy while living a life with such restrictions. Socrates argues that “in founding the city we are not looking to the exception happiness of any one group among us, but far possible that of the city as a whole” (Plato s.420b-420c). With that being said, Socrates would rather focus on satisfying the society as a whole rather than the guardian using his power to satisfy his own needs. Socrates also tells Adeimantus that there would be no poverty or wealth considering that there would be no money to quarrel over. Thereby, Socrates believed that the problem within every city is due to the dispute over money ultimately leading to corruption. As a result, the corruption of the city occurs when it encourages indolence whereas poverty becomes the impeding factor of the craftsman making high-quality goods. Onwards with Socrates and Adeimantus’ discussion, Adeimantus argues that a city without money is not able to properly defend itself from potential threats. Socrates responds to this considering by “looking to happiness for the city as a whole, where we must see if it comes to be in the city, and must compel and persuade these auxiliaries and guardians to do the same so that they’ll be the best possible craftsmen at their jobs, and similarly for all the others” (Plato s.421b). Thus, Socrates reminds Adeimantus that the city that does not place great value and attention on money will not be distracted from having the best warriors to protect the city. Socrates also adds that once neighboring cities recognize the resilience demonstrated by the guardian and auxiliaries, they would volunteer their own warriors to help protect their city. Thereby, Socrates is against money due to the fact that he believes that it is nothing but an impeding factor from building a society that the majority of people can be satisfied with. Instead, Socrates relies on the virtues demonstrated by the guardians in order to protect the city and prevent the corruption that money consequently encourages.

As a result of the two opposing views from Locke and Socrates, both of these philosophers demonstrate a different overall purpose within their books. The main idea of Locke’s book refers to the concept of how people are born with certain rights. Thereby, the government must protect every individual’s rights at all costs. To explain this concept, Locke supported the idea of the social contract theory where all natural nights exist and all wealth is the product of labor. Referring to the state of nature, Locke argues that “As if when men, quitting the state of nature, entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one should be under the restraint of laws; but that he should still retain the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power” (Locke s.22). Hence, Locke demonstrates his favor for democracy over any other type of government since laws must be set out in order to retain the state from any chaos due to the privilege of free will. In regards to property, every man is entitled to his own property where it is the job of the government to protect man’s well-deserved possessions by developing laws.

On the other hand, Socrates’ main purpose emphasized in Plato’s book is to build an ideal justice society. By doing so, Plato takes account of Socrates’ ideal society modeled on justice with a goal for other humans that come across the book to model their cities the way Socrates would have imagined. Simultaneously, he also takes account of how the soul is governed by justice which is consequently an element in regards to constructing an ideal just society. As the book is written with dialogue taking place at all times, the reader is guided toward the discovery of the meaning of justice. Socrates reminds readers that “justice is among the greatest goods […] those that are worth having for what comes from them but much more for themselves, such as seeing, hearing, thinking, and, of course, being healthy and all the other goods that are fruitful by their own nature and not by opinion—upraise this aspect of justice” (Plato s.367c-d). To summarize, Socrates believes that injustice cannot be a virtue considering that justice is more desirable as it is a reward for health to the soul. In relation to his idea of property and money, Socrates would consider money to be an injustice as the individual earnings of man do not benefit the city as a whole, it only benefits one’s own personal needs.

In summary, the main differentiating points between these two books involve the opposing values Locke and Socrates place on money. On one hand, Locke believes that money is valuable as a reward for man’s own labor. On the other hand, Socrates does not approve of the existence of money and the value placed on it signifies selfishness and immoderation within society. Thus, these different ideas are demonstrated in regards to taking in the world’s gift of nature for one’s own advantage, different views on how a just society should perceive money, as well as an overall different purpose for each book being written. Overall, the purpose of both of these books refers to the different ideas to demonstrate how a state should be governed.

1. John Locke: The Father of Liberalism

English philosopher John Locke’s works are considered the foundation of modern philosophical empiricism, political liberalism, and the early age of enlightenment. Locke’s ideas were used as the basis for the revolution of the English colonies in North America.

It is posited that philosophy is often a reflection of personal disposition and life circumstances. Locke was deeply involved in the political affairs of his country which no doubt influenced his philosophical work.

John Locke was born on August 29, 1632, in Somerset, England, the eldest of two sons. His father was a lawyer and captain in the military during the English civil war. Locke’s parents were Puritans, seeking to purify the Church of England of Roman Catholic practices. Locke received an excellent education because of his father’s connections in the military and through his loyalty to the English government.

Locke was educated at Westminster school where he earned the honor of being named a King’s Scholar. It provided Locke with the opportunity to attend the University of Oxford’s most prestigious school, Christ Church. Locke studied logic, metaphysics, and classical languages, and graduated with a Bachelor of Medicine.

When studying medicine Locke met Lord Ashley, who later went on to become the Earl of Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury convinced Locke to become his personal physician in London. During that period Locke continued his medical training under the tutelage of Thomas Sydenham, who influenced Locke’s natural philosophical thinking.

In the 1670s Locke’s responsibilities grew beyond being a physician and he was exposed to business and politics, with his mentor Shaftesbury having a significant influence on Locke’s political philosophy. Locke served as secretary on several boards, shaping his ideas on economics and international trade.

Locke’s mentor Shaftesbury fell from favor in England around 1675. Locke took the opportunity to travel through France, returning to England in 1679. Locke departed England again in 1683 after becoming a target of Government and speculation he was involved in a plot to assassinate the King, which was later proven improbable. Nonetheless, he fled to Holland. When exiled in Holland, Locke began writing An Essay Concerning Human Understanding which ultimately became four books examining the nature of human knowledge.

In 1688 Locke returned to his homeland after the overthrow of King James II by William of Orange, a Dutchman who became King William III. The overthrow of King James II, known as the Glorious Revolution amongst other terms, eternally altered the course of the English government, moving the balance of power from constitutional monarchy to Parliament, lending support to Locke’s contention that government was a social contract between the king and representatives of the people, the Parliament. It also set Locke up to be a hero to many in his native country.

Locke was a prolific writer and wrote on political, scientific, and philosophical matters in correspondence and in journals throughout his life. Remarkably, Locke’s seminal works, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the Two Treatises of Civil Government, and ‘A Letter Concerning Toleration were published in the short period between 1689 to 1690. Then in 1693, he published Some Thoughts Concerning Education, his contribution to the Philosophy of Education, and in 1695 The Reasonableness of Christianity, suggesting the basic doctrines of Christianity are relatively few and entirely compatible with reason.

In 1691 Locke moved to his close friend Lady Damaris Masham’s country house at Oates, Essex. In the ensuing years, Locke responded to followers and critics by revising later editions of his books and discussing matters with such figures as John Dryden and Sir Isaac Newton.

Locke remained connected to administrative matters associated with the Government. He re-established the Board of Trade, the body responsible for overseeing England’s new territories in North America, serving as one of the Board’s key members.

He continued to work at the Board of Trade from 1696 until his retirement in 1700. Locke died in Essex on October 28, 1704, He was buried at the High Laver Church, in the county of Essex.

Years after his death Locke’s impact on Western thought is still being debated. His theories regarding the separation of Church and State, religious freedom, and liberty influenced America’s founders, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Locke’s views on the innateness of the human mind also laid the groundwork for the Enlightenment or the Age of Reason influencing enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Rousseau.

2. Heart of the Argument

John Locke is considered one of the most influential western philosophers of contemporary times. Locke is regarded as the first philosopher of the Age of Enlightenment and has influenced consequent western thought.

Locke’s most significant contributions were to modern philosophical empiricism and the establishment of the modern theory of Liberalism. Moreover, Locke’s views and influence also comprise a broad spectrum including theology, religious tolerance, and educational theory. Locke pioneered the exploration of modern concepts of identity and the self and led the first significant analysis of linguistics by studying the role of language in human mental life. Philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant, developed their philosophies based on Locke’s work.

Empiricism

Empiricism is a theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. In Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding he seeks to uncover the source of human knowledge and understanding. Locke proposes that at birth the mind is a tabula rasa, a Latin phrase meaning blank slate. He believed we are born without innate ideas and that over time information is added and rules for processing formed solely by the experience we gain from our senses. The Essay is considered one of Locke’s most influential works and continues to shape philosophical thought.

Nonetheless, Locke also considered the mind had intrinsic capacities, predispositions, and inclinations preceding receipt of any ideas from sensation, being activated only when the senses receive an idea.

Liberalism

Liberalism is a political philosophy that considers individual liberty to be the most important political goal and emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. John Locke is recognized for establishing liberalism as a discrete philosophical tradition. Locke’s contribution to philosophy led him to become known as the Father of Liberalism.

Locke’s Two Treatises on Government established two fundamental liberal ideas:

• economic liberty (meaning the right to have and use the property); and
• intellectual liberty (including freedom of conscience).

The Second Treatise has several themes including the nature of government, conquest, slavery, property, and the right to revolution.

Locke developed his natural rights theory (the guarantee of life, liberty, and property), the predecessor of the modern conception of human rights and the basis for contemporary democracy. Locke’s view of government was that it is a social contract in which individuals retain the rights they have in the state of nature and receive protection from physical harm, security for their possessions, etc. in return for relinquishing certain rights, the right to punishment.

Locke proposed the then revolutionary concept that government obtains consent from the governed, consequently, authority is derived from the people rather than from above. Therefore, Government is obliged to be responsive to the citizens otherwise citizens are obligated to revolt and remove any government failing to secure their natural rights. Locke also advocated the separation of church and state, and of the individual right to follow one’s own religious beliefs without a religion being imposed by the state.

Locke also outlined his labor theory of property, a theory of natural law holding that property is the product of the exertion of labor upon natural resources, later influencing Marx’s labor theory of value.

3. Strengths

Empiricism

Locke’s empiricism was developed through his observations of the contrast between natural scientists and moralists and theologians. Locke believed the scientific method of accepting as true only those conclusions verified by experiment and observation was clearly a safe method and should be used for all disciplines of inquiry. He suggested that the inductive method of arriving at the truth was superior to the deductive method. Locke’s repudiation of the principle of innate ideas directly challenged rationalistic thinkers’ doctrines, which were primarily based on assumed principles and conclusions reached by a process of deductive reasoning.

Locke’s theory concerning the flawed belief in innate ideas strongly influenced the development of empirical philosophy in the century following the publication of the Essay. The emphasis on the empirical method did not completely supersede rationalistic philosophy, it caused followers of rationalism to be more cautious. The influence of empiricism became more prominent over successive generations and remains a core characteristic of contemporary thinking.

Liberalism

John Locke synthesized previous doctrines of classical liberalism from the likes of Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Hobbes into a clear body of classical liberal thought. In support of his theory, he sought to demonstrate how James II forfeited his throne because he violated the social contract. As discussed at the heart of the argument, when the contract is broken, citizens have the right to revolt against the sovereign or government.

Locke’s social contract philosophy formed the basis of the Contract of Government, whereby all political power is in trust for the benefit of the people, and citizens are responsible for creating that trust whilst also being beneficiaries of the trust. The social contract provides power only so the welfare of its citizens is improved and their property is protected.

Locke’s liberalism philosophy is driven by humanity. It is suggested Locke’s true objective was to allow humans to live happier and fuller lives, engaging their spiritual or religious natures, and that he viewed religious toleration and contractual government principally to achieve that goal. His philosophy accepts diversity, provides citizens the freedom to pursue diverse goals, and supports peaceful cooperation throughout the world. Locke’s political philosophy supported the basic elements of free market economics, and Locke’s concept of natural law led to the development of legal systems to protect the rights of individuals.

4. Weaknesses

Empiricism

Locke’s theory was based on contradicting his definition of innate ideas, however, he may have misinterpreted the meaning of innate as used by the rationalistic thinkers. Plato did not think the soul was conscious of ideas until the mind was stimulated by sense perceptions. Descartes’ conception of innate ideas had to do with his criterion of truth. Consistent with Plato, he theorized ideas exist in the mind without being perceived by the senses but does not imply that the full meaning of either of them was necessarily present in one’s consciousness.

In his theory, Locke assumed Descartes’s definition of mind, that unless an idea was present in one’s consciousness, it was not in his mind at all. Leibnitz conclusively argued Descartes’s definition was untrue, arguing if it were so, remembering something could not be distinguished from obtaining information for the first time. Presently, the concept of a subconscious mind is generally accepted by psychologists and is rarely disputed.

If the subconscious mind is acknowledged, Locke’s argument of ideas emanating from sensory experience diminishes. That is, an idea may be in the subconscious mind and don’t appear at the conscious level until after experiences have occurred.

Liberalism

In Locke’s view, what he called “the Law of Nature” meant that individuals were morally bound not to damage other people’s lives or property. In economic terms, this position broadly equates to a state that focuses on the protection of property rights and adjudication of contractual disputes. Critics argue that Locke developed his theory from his political experience of his time, to justify the outcomes of the Glorious Revolution and to protect the property of the aristocracy. It should be noted Locke’s work was not recognized by his contemporaries as being influential.

Locke’s social contract theory could be considered unrealistic as it assumes that each person is a distinct independent individual whereas humans are naturally social and political beings. Furthermore, despite Locke’s theory of citizens’ delegation of authority to a government, it is a notional fiction rather than reality, as anarchy would reign if people revolted each time the government did not maintain the ‘social contract.

His political theory is about maintaining the status quo and does not propose governments should improve social conditions if they contradict the ‘law of nature. In the contemporary context, Locke’s social contract theory is elitist, or biased towards those who have property, because the real benefits of property ownership apply to those who have property, and a perpetual cause of conflict is the divide between those who own, and those who do not own, property.

Finally, Locke’s theory does not support human flourishing and proposed that we obey our rulers because of their superior will, which is somewhat contradictory to his contention of ‘people power’.

5. Leadership Lessons

Though John Locke died over three centuries ago there his philosophy and philosophical works can still provide useful lessons for contemporary leaders.

Locke’s philosophy on tolerance provides a valuable lesson in accepting diversity. Diversity of thought within a workplace has been proven to increase creativity, productivity, employee engagement, and profit.

Locke’s belief in natural law, the theory of value, and the right of the individual to ‘own their own life’ forms the basis of economic theory. He believed the individual could ‘own’ the product of their work, or in contemporary terms, generate assets from the application of labor and that all wealth is the product of labor. As a leader, knowledge of economic theory is important. The ability to influence the efficient application of labor can increases performance.

The last and most significant leadership lesson from Locke is the empowerment and participation of all employees of an organization. Contemporary leadership is about authenticity, cooperation, and collaboration, not necessarily democracy. Forsaking authoritarian leadership and respecting the knowledge of employees. A connection is structured by a social contract based upon immutable rights afforded to everyone. Locke was an advocate of man acknowledging the dignity of humankind.

Bibliography

1. Editors, B., 2019. The Biography.com website. [Online] Available at: https://www.biography.com/scholar/john-locke [Accessed 7 December 2019].
2. Gregg, S., 2011. Public Discourse – Social Contracts, Human Flourishing, and the Economy. [Online] Available at: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/06/3424/ [Accessed 7th December 2019].
3. Gregg, S., 2011. Public Discourse – John Locke and the Inadequacies of Social Contract Theory. [Online] Available at: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/07/3583/ [Accessed 7th December 2019].
4. Locke, J. &. M. C. B., 1980. Second treatise of government. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.
5. Locke, J. &. Y. J. W., 1993. An essay concerning human understanding. London: Dent.
6. Matson, W. I. & Fogelin, R. J., 1987. A New History of Philosophy. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
7. Spillane, R., 2015. An Eye for an I: Philosophies of Personal Power. Sydney: GOKO Publishing.
8. Spillane, R. & Joulie, J.-E., 2015. The Philosophical Foundations of Management Thought. 1st ed. Maryland: Lexington Books.
9. Spillane, R. & Joullie, J.-E., 2015. Philosophy of Leadership: The Power of Authority. 1st ed. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan.

Compare and contrast Thomas Hobbes’s and John Locke`s state of nature.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was an English political philosopher who wrote in the 17th century and was compelled to flee to France for eight years as a result of the dominance of civil war at the time. John Locke (1632-1704), on the other hand, was an English political philosopher and physician who was regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the modern period.

Hobbes and Locke utilized the state of nature as a hypothetical situation to illustrate the need for a social contract, which leads to the creation of a valid political body yet their differing views on nature lead them to different and conflicting judgments about what sort of government should be established. Locke has a more positive view of nature and believes that it is controlled by natural law. To contrary Hobbes, he distinguishes between the condition of nature and the state of war. ‘Enduring peace,’ according to Hobbes, is inextricably linked to the condition of nature.

In Leviathan, Hobbes makes it clear that equality has terrible implications. This means that Hobbes feels that everyone is harmful to each other because of their inherent equality. According to Hobbes, the two are inextricably linked in a state of tension between equality and enmity.

If two people want the same thing but can’t have it, they become adversaries and try to destroy or dominate one another.

Hobbes had a severely gloomy view of human nature. Initially, Locke’s description of the man in the state of nature resembles Hobbes’. And Locke believes that man is born with freedom and equality, which leads to a natural condition of pure freedom and equality, in which no one has superiority over anyone else or supreme authority over anyone else.

Locke’s description of human nature in Second Treaties appears to be based on natural theology, as a result of his involvement in the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Because of this, he began to think that mankind is ruled by Reason in their natural condition, which he also refers to as the ‘Law of Nature. God’s goals are at the heart of natural law, according to Locke. As a result, he argues men do not have the right to self-destruction and neither do the creatures he owns. . In addition, Locke believed that the natural law guaranteed every individual’s right to self-preservation and that mutual preservation was also a moral responsibility.

In Locke’s view, man’s sense of morality is naturally produced by reason, and they are able to distinguish between the righteous and the evil within the rules of natural law. This means that individuals are aware of what behaviors are acceptable. Thus, in Locke’s words, it is a State of Perfect Freedom to organize their [men’s] Actions and dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they judge right, within the confines of Natural Law.’ That is, while men are equal and free in their natural state, there are binding laws in this state that serve to protect one’s life and property. Hobbes does not hold the same beliefs in natural theology as his counterpart, which led to him developing a different interpretation of Reason and natural law. In this way, Hobbes opposes Locke’s sense of morality, which is based on classical moral philosophy. Hobbes’ interpretation of nature is basically amoral since he declares that in the situation of men that have no other Law except their own Appetites, there can be no general Rule of Good and Evil Actions. This demonstrates that Hobbes, as a supporter of New Science, rejects the notion that men are born with a traditional sense of morality. Individuals are incapable of selecting their actions and understanding what is right and wrong because these conceptions have no significance or value in the condition of nature. Hobbes considers man to be an embodiment. They will frequently act in accordance with their interests and pleasures, the primary one being self-preservation, as a result of passions, cravings, and aversions, which means they will often act in accordance with their interests and pleasures, the primary one being self-preservation.

For Hobbes, the state of nature is a state of license since he defines it as a place where ‘every man has a Right to everything; even one another’s the body. In the state of nature, Hobbes claims that as long as this natural Right of every man endures, there can be no security for any man. This implies that the current state of nature has a dreadful meaning. Hobbes interprets this state as fundamentally a state of war. For him, it is an endless state of conflict, anarchy, and bloodshed because everyone can benefit from infinite liberty and hence no one can be certain of self-preservation. The challenge stems from the need to maintain peace in this situation, in which first, competence, secondly, diffidence, and thirdly, glory’ urge men to do whatever it takes to gain supremacy over others in order to preserve themselves. The importance of self-preservation in Hobbes’ Leviathan cannot be overstated, as Hobbes contends that man’s need for self-preservation is heightened by his constant fear of death. This fear is the primary driver of the state of war, leading citizens to conclude that certain rules are required to put a stop to this terror. Hobbes claims that these principles when understood rationally, tell the man to seek peace and reject the state of conflict in order to ensure his own survival. However, this can only be achieved if an individual’s thinking process is changed into collective rationality, which drives individuals to reject the state of nature entirely. After men manage to escape this horrific state, the subsequent natural rule, which is merely based on barter, requires men to give their entire freedom in the state of nature to a Sovereign thus exchange of their safety with the tyrant. As a result of Hobbes’ third natural law, ‘men obey their pledges made’, and the famous social contract is born. Hobbes’ state of nature makes it obvious that collective rationality, which is required to overcome the state of war, cannot be attained without an absolute sovereign to enforce the bounds, punish transgressors, and so on, in order to sustain the agreement. Contrary to Hobbes, Locke distinguishes the state of nature from the state of war by claiming that the former is a condition of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation and the latter is a state of enmity, malice, violence, and mutual destruction.’. Locke discusses this change in the Second Treaties as follows Men living together rationally, without a common Superior on Earth, with Authority to decide between them, is the proper state of nature. However, force, or a declared intention to use force against the person of another, if there is no common Superior on Earth to seek redress, is the State of War.

While some of their ideas are similar, there are a plethora of significant discrepancies in their understanding of the state of nature. For example, Locke considers the law of nature to rule over the state of nature, in which individuals and their property are not always in danger. Hobbes’ state of nature, on the other hand, is one of war, which leads men to believe that they must continually be on the lookout for peace.

Furthermore, Locke and Hobbes reach a similar conclusion that natural law works to ensure self-preservation. However, while Locke believes that it is permissible for individuals to carry out the law in order to punish the perpetrator, Hobbes believes that the only way to impose the law is to cede authority to a Leviathan that can successfully provide security. The disparities between each notion of the state of nature stem, to a large part, from their disparate conceptions of human nature. Both of them eventually propose the construction of a superior authority, namely an impartial judge for Locke and an absolute ruler for Hobbes, in order to deal with concerns arising from the state of nature, which can be accomplished through the establishment of a social contract. However, Locke and Hobbes do not experience the same shift in power as a result of this pre-societal stage. This is due to the fact that the two philosophers completely differ in form. The type of government that should be built and the type of agreement that should be accepted by persons

The turbulence of the state of nature, according to Locke, stems from the fact that each and every person is a judge in his own right, making it critical to construct a social contract among men in order to pursue justice. However, this can only happen if everyone agrees, as Locke says, ‘it is not every contract that puts a stop to the state of Nature between men, but only this one of deciding together unanimously to enter into one community…’ There are several reasons for this. First, Locke rejects the idea of a top-down shift to the status of free individuals in nature. He views constitutional monarchy as the optimum form of government since it allows individuals to retain some control over their lives.

Considering Locke’s work, the concept of property is fundamental. It’s important to remember that despite the fact that men gain property in the state of nature, it can never be insured without men giving up their own authority to a civil government that can legitimately provide justice and defends their inherent rights as well as their property. Hobbes’ state of nature, on the other hand, does not have a central function for property, because ownership is impossible in this state. Consequently, Hobbes focuses more on the preservation of human life than their property in order to prove his legitimacy as a government. To terminate the state of war and transform their community into a civil society, Hobbes imagines a social compact. Hobbes, on the other hand, favors a forceful form of governance due to his disdain for the natural human state. Conflicts generated by human nature can only be resolved by a government with full power. A Sovereign defines all the rules and decides what is right or wrong in society, allowing individuals to relinquish their absolute freedom. Hobbes’ Leviathan is empowered to pass laws as a result of the covenants made by individuals. and enforcing them only for the aim of promoting peace and prosperity The essential axioms of Hobbes’ ideal system are clearly force and coercion, which serve to terrify individuals in order to prevent them from breaching the contract.

The last but not least significant distinction between Hobbes and Locke is that, according to Locke, if the government itself violates natural law, it loses its legitimacy. Individuals can revolt against a corrupt government and finally overturn it, according to Locke, because it has a constitutional rather than absolute power. Hobbes’ viewpoint is more problematic since he argues that when people submit to their Sovereign and give up their right to rule, they also give up their right to rebel against their Sovereign, as this would be an unjust act and would violate the covenant.

In conclusion, the comparison reveals that their beliefs contradict each other on fundamental matters such as human nature, the social compact, and the form of governance, among others. Despite the fact that each philosopher’s account is essentially consistent, their positions are almost wholly contradictory.

References

1. (John Lock,1689) Two Treatises on Government, Book II, Sect 27.)
2. Huhne,Thomas.2012 `The state of nature` in John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau.( Munich: GRIN Verlag)
3. Locke, John and Rod Hay. 2000. Two Treatises of Government. 1st ed. (Hamilton, Ont.): (McMaster University)