Essay on Personal Identity: Views of John Locke and David Hume

There are very distinct opinions between philosophers John Locke, an English philosopher, and David Hume, a Scottish empiricist and skeptic philosopher when it comes down to the topic of personal identity. Both, Locke and Hume, give many reasons for their beliefs, which help support their positions. While both provide their reasonings for their beliefs, one does seem to be a bit more convincing in their argument than the other. It is important to understand both philosophers’ points of view regarding the personal identity to be able to determine who has the most convincing argument.

To begin with, Locke starts off by saying that personal identity consists in having “the same consciousness.” What Locke means in saying this is that one’s consciousness is what determines their personal identity. In other words, one is considered to be the same person as long as they can consciously recall their past actions and thoughts; as well as being conscious of their current actions and thoughts (Locke, p.388, para. 2). For example, if I can remember when I learned how to ride a bike at age 9 and I am now 21, I can confirm that I am the same person. Being able to consciously remember past memories is vital when it comes down to personal identity, according to Locke. Since Locke wholeheartedly believes that one technically only exists via the mind, he determines that the physical body does not have a very much important role in personal identity. To Locke, the body’s role in personal identity is simply a location in which the consciousness occupies (Locke, p.388, para. 1). Technically saying that the body is just where the consciousness of one lives. The body does not play a huge role in determining personal identity due to it automatically changing over time while the consciousness stays the same. It also doesn’t play a huge role in determining personal identity because, to Locke, if personal identity depended on the sameness of the body, there would be an issue. This is because one’s body changes over time and there is no telling if one will be the same or even physically look the same as they did in the past; making the body worthless in personal identity. As for Hume, he does not agree with the idea that Locke came up with regarding personal identity consisting in having the same consciousness.

Hume believes that the concept of personal identity, or what he calls “self”, is just an illusion. In more detail, Hume basically means that one is consciously changing by day, so how can one be the same person over time? He argues that one’s mind fools them into believing that one is the same self since their consciousness is in the same body from birth to death. Now, even though the body is constant, consciousness is not; which gives reason as to why one cannot be the same person they were from one time to the next. But, to Hume, it is with consciousness in one’s perception in one can identify oneself, whether they are the same person or not (Hume, p.392, para. 3). Hume uses the case of the ship undergoing repairs to support his argument. He does so by showing how even through various repairs, which changed the ship physically, it is still considered the same through the relations of one’s conscious perceptions. While both philosophers have valid points in their perspectives, one does seem to be a bit more convincing.

In my opinion, when comparing Locke and Hume, Locke does seem to be most compelling in his view on personal identity. He is more convincing because he gives a very detailed explanation as to why our consciousness is our identity. Locke gives a detailed explanation by adding that one is the same person if they can consciously remember their past actions and thoughts; and if one cannot remember their past, they’re a different person. Even though one is a different person, they still have a personal identity. Another reason Locke is more convincing than Hume is that he also looks at personal identity from another perspective. He looks at personal identity from another perspective by identifying why it doesn’t consist in the sameness of the body. Locke does so by expressing the idea that the body isn’t consistent throughout time, this is because it changes physically (Locke, p.387, para. 3). To conclude, while both did have many good points to back up their concepts, John Locke did seem more convincing.

Comparative Analysis of John Locke and Mary Wollstonecraft

Introduction

The researcher has done extensive research on the topic “Comparative Analysis of John Locke ” with special focus on the views shared by John Locke and Mary Wollstonecraft. The main objective of this entire project is to analyse the views hold by both of the profound philosophers. The research methodology used in this project is Doctrinal Research which includes variety of sources for effective and exhaustive research. Various offline and online sources were used , the offline resources include the books and the online resources are the site and articles referred to which include

John Locke Ideas

2.1 About John Locke-His Ideas and contributions

One of the impressive works of Locke include “An Essay” which was written in 1689 and it focuses on the nature of the mankind. In the text he formulated his theory of ideas and his views on the genesis of human knowledge. Later, Two Treatises of Government he supported the theory of political authority which was firmly based on natural rights and freedom of the individual and the will of the people.The major purpose of this book was to defend the Glorious Revolution and William’s seizure of the throne. He founded the modern theory of Liberalism and made an outstanding contribution to modern philosophy of empiricism. He also influenced the vast subjects of theology, religious tolerance and educational theory. Some of the other accomplishments of John Locke were remarkable too as he made the first substantial inquiry in the field of linguistics by scrutinizing the role that language plays in human mental life and also touched the modern concepts of identity and the self.

2.2 Concept of Rights

The concept of natural rights has been argued upon by ancient Greeks and the have generally held that these rights belong equally to all men and women at birth and cannot be taken away. Locke believed that the only reason the people formulated the concept of government was to preserve natural rights and also the man’s happiness and security. However, not all men and women chose to respect the natural rights of others and presented threats to the liberties of the others. At this stage man entered into a social contract in which a state (government) was formed to guarantee the rights of the members of society. Locke believed that the only reason for the existence of government was to preserve natural rights and, by extension, man’s happiness and security.

The concept of natural rights includes the basic rights which are often taken from the law of nature and covers the aspects such as life, liberty and property. The theory firmly states that the individual’s self-preservation should be of utmost importance and one can go to any extent to achieve the preservation of the individual. However, Locke does not preach an egoistic way of individual preservation, but also stresses for the need to consider others as equal. For example, the right to life is accessible to every human being, but we also need to take into consideration the preservation of others in so far as not harming or killing them. The main difference that arises between them is consent. The relationship between a parent and a child is of such nature. Natural rights can be compared to contemporary human rights, but natural rights are broader in scope as they have less restrictions. Locke’s natural rights are not the culmination of political, legal and social fields, but are result of our common nature.

Locke in his writings often mentioned that all individuals are endowed with certain ‘inalienable’ natural rights. That is, these rights are given by god and they can’t be taken or even given away. They are absolute in nature. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are ‘life, liberty, and property.’

Locke believed that the concept of these natural rights are the most basic human law given to us by nature and the main aim is the preservation of mankind. In order to achieve this goal , he put forward , individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives . Rights and duties are complementary to each other. Murderers, however , lose their right to life since they act outside the law of reason. Locke also argued that everyone in the society should have freedom to make choices about how to control their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching. By ‘property,’ Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold , Property also referred to ownership of one’s self, which included a right to personal well being. The main aim of government According to Locke , is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. In order to achieve this , the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But Locke also argued that if the government interferes with these rights then the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

2.2 (A) Cartoon Interpretation

The cartoon mentioned above is an example of the true meaning of life and liberty in the contemporary world of USA. The very first question that arises after seeing this is why has Jefferson used “the pursuit of happiness” instead of property.

The phrase has different meaning to different people. Some Europeans feel that this change was done so as to hold United states unique among nations in positive as well as negative connotations . And sadly, Many Americans feel that the word property could have been better in place of the pursuit of happiness. To them the pursuit of happiness meant nothing more than the pursuit of wealth and status as embodied in a McMansion, a Lexus, and membership in a country club. Even more sadly, Jefferson’s own “property” included about two hundred human beings whom he did not permit to pursue their own happiness. The other interpretation that arises is the difference between the views held by John Locke and the Government of USA. The cartoon shows that despite being endowed with the natural rights , the government puts restrictions on its citizens. The cartoon takes a dig at the government who under the pretext of ensuring the right of life and liberty are actually caging them to satisfy their own needs are not permitting them to pursue their own happiness .2.3 Views on the rights of women

The very notion of assuring equality between the men and women has never been paid heed upon by most political theorists. Most of them have stayed neutral on this assumption that there is a natural inequality between the existing genders which has to be preserved in civil society. Locke made 3 assumptions on the inequality existing between the two sexes, which are as follows-

First, ‘natural’ inequality exists between the sexes and the male member is considered the most superior being.

Second, that reproduction is not the eternal truth of political life and is of no incentive in making life remarkable for man.

Third , that the family is a ‘natural’ institution which remains outside the political circle.

Thus Locke held that the subjugation faced by women found with respect to men is not because of the prevailing law, or any sort of arbitrary means and not even due to the will and authority of God. Rather it is because the women is ‘the weaker Sex’, and is forced to bring forth children in pain and sorrow. Women are, thus, weaker than men, and this weakness is itself a direct result of the capabilities of women have with respect to reproduction. Locke says that this was The Curse of God laid on women which by nature disadvantaged women and the disadvantage was clearly considered to be her reproductive capacities. The fact that women and women alone can bear children was considered as a natural disadvantage which leads to a natural inequality between the sexes. explains and justifies the general subjugation of women by men.Strong willed women stood as an exception because of the presence of social differences and they also overcame their natural disadvantage so as to escape the discrimination.Locke believed that there was a natural inequality between the sexes, that men were superior, and that this superiority ordinarily gave them a right to the obedience of their wives. It also seems clear that he believed that the source of women’s inferiority lay in her reproductive capacities, and that he regarded this as a natural rather than a conventional disadvantage. Locke also emphaised that the wives were at the liberty to leave their husbands if the latter didnt act for their good , and also considered that the ideal figure of father was composed of calmness and reason and no power beyond that was needed for a concern for the child’s good and exercised with their tacit consent. John Locke political view on the human mankind offers us a glimpse to scrutinize and criticize various thoughts. Many feminist believe that Locke’s assumptions and his theories have failed to address the actual biological and the circumstances faced by women throughout history.

2.3(A) Cartoon Interpretation

The above cartoon clearly depicts the wish of the woman of getting rid of the responsibilities imposed on her. This throws light on the fact that how women are subjected to certain chores and have been restricted throughout history. The picture of gender inequality comes into the scenario. LOCKE on this , in his writings and essays has often elaborated that all the differences between the two genders are as a result of the existing physical and emotional distinctions. The society since ages has objectified women as a reproduction and a household chore machine . Locke in this scenario says that humans should realise that reproduction is not the eternal truth of life.

2.4 Views on Religion

Locke’s viewpoint on religious toleration were very broad based. According to him humans should not tolerate the ones who would forcibly impose their religious views on others. Similarly, any institution religious in nature which posed a threat to political stability or public safety should not be tolerated at any cost. The most important aspect was that Locke included Roman Catholics in this group. He respected the diverse opinions originating in the society and also stood for the rights of the individuals. But at the same time, he opposed the atheists.

2.5 Views on Education

In order to understand the views on Locke’s view on education we must take into account that his views were largely influenced by the time period and the place where he spent his life. In his early life, he was tutored by his father. This very fact explains that he was in the favour of tutorial form of education. As his father was a parliamentary colonel, the rigid and complex structure, discipline affected him badly. Thus he opposed the so called “public schools “of his times. Locke reasons that parents should play a leading role in educating their wards. He was a staunch defender of parents rights in the realm of education. Also, Locke’s political argument for defining education as a duty of parents rather than the state does not mean that the state has no legitimate interests in providing or regulating education.

Mary Wollstonecraft Ideas

3.1 Mary Wollstonecraft ideas and contributions

During the late 18th century when single women had little protection under the law and Married women had lost their legal identity and had no rights to express themselves, when Women couldn’t retain a lawyer, sign a contract, inherit property, vote, or have rights over their children, came passionate and bold Mary Wollstonecraft who revolutionised the world by writing “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman” (1792). She openly held that both women and men were human beings and are endowed with certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. She stood for the women education and stressed for the upliftment of women. She was also of the view that women should be free to enter business, pursue professional careers, and vote if they wanted to. She spoke for the improvement and the emancipation of whole sex. She also supported the physical training programmes to help stimulate and balance the mind.

3.2 Mary Wollstonecraft views on women rights

Contending for the rights of women, her main argument was based on this simple principle, that if a woman is not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will not progress and would lag behind in knowledge and virtue. She advocated that truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. She held that education for women was important was the women were primarily responsible for the education of the young. Mary Wollstonecraft also put forward that enlightening women with education would strengthen the marriage relationship. Her concept of subtle marriage was that marriage is a social contract between two individuals. A woman thus needs to have equal knowledge and sense, to maintain the partnership. Mary Wollstonecraft also acknowledges that women and men are sexual beings. Thus both male and female should uphold the virtues of celibacy and faithfulness. Also Men are required, as much as women, to put duty over sexual pleasure. The area in which the male dominated the female is the area of physical domination. As for any other difference between the sexes, she acknowledges no differences. Wollstonecraft’s essay draws the attention of the readers on Rousseau’s Social Contract and partly on Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution as she thought that these philosophers had failed to present a particular standpoint i.e. the belief that women too could have access to a rational understanding of the world.

Such was the influence of Mary Wollstonecraft radical ideas that it resulted in the origin of a great wave called “The first wave of Feminism” in the early 19th century. The first wave of feminism resulted in a mass movement where women stood for themselves for the very first time. . This phase revolved largely around gaining basic legal rights for women that today we cannot imagine our lives without. Politics and business and every other arena were completely dominated by powerful men who didn’t consider women capable enough to be a threat. Suffrage, the right of women to vote in elections, became the goal of the movement with the formation of the American Equal Rights Association in 1866.

The strategic construction of this women’s movement took multiplicity of forms. The campaigns included biographical sketches, suffrage drama and fiction and even prompted satiric writings which parodied the political divisions

3.3 Cartoon interpretation

This cartoon draws our attention to the reaction of men when the great suffrage movement arose. The women in the cartoon is referred to as “the wild rose”, the men represent the anti-suffragists. Anti-suffragists belonged to the middle-class and were conservative in nature. They were of the view that women were destined to be child-bearers and homemakers, whereas men were to be the lawmakers and leaders. In short, anti-suffragists believed it was against the laws of nature for women to seek enfranchisement. They objectified women as alluring mistress who were subject to household chores.

This cartoon reflects the contemporary notion of feminism. In the contemporary times, the word feminism has been misunderstood by some as the hatred for men. This very notion defeats the very purpose of feminism. True feminism lies in gender equality. It lies in treating men and women equal and providing them all the rights on a equal platform. In this cartoon , the women refuses to acknowledge the banner of feminism as she believes that feminism is no more about gender equality. It has turned out to be a group of feminazis instead. She openly believes that the true essence of feminism lies in the real equality i.e. the quality between the genders.

3.4 Views on education and religion

The major focus was placed on the minimum education that was provided to women at the time. From this, the reader actually comes to know the lacunas in the education system of that time. Hence Wollstonecraft’s idea on proper education was that it was a resourceful training of the mind which would enable women to accomplish a virtuous and respectful place in society. She resorts that adequate education for women as the major suggestion in her plea for feminine improvement and self-fulfilment.

One major cause of the exploitation of women was the false system of education, which objectified women as considerate of everything and a slave which had no legal rights than affectionate wives and rational mothers. Wollstonecraft also alleged that women were also at fault as they indirectly complied with the very system that oppressed them.

Wollstonecraft dedicated herself to making women see that they could use reason as well as men could, and rejected the feminine mystique put forward in male treatises of the time such as James Fordyce’s Sermons to Young Women (1765), John Gregory’s Fat her’s Legacy to His Daughter (1774) who have contributed to render women artificial, weak characters.

Wollstonecraft embraced a religion that acknowledged faith with logic, morality with wisdom , and which placed no restrictions on human inquest. She said that one should submit to the moral laws which one infers. According to her, this was not to an arbitrary will but to unerring reason. She rejected the notion that the faculty of reason is exclusively a male attribute. In particular, she challenged the dogma and authoritarianism of the Church of England. She also felt that the True grace arose from some kind of independence of mind.

Essay on John Locke Theories on Early Childhood Education

In this essay, I would like to discuss Rousseau’s approach to childhood and how his work impacted society. The themes of innocent states and fears of corruption are repeating themes that appear within Rousseau’s work. I would like to highlight the main points he emphasizes throughout his texts, particularly in his treatise on education called Emile (1762), also known as On Education, which supplies a more holistic approach, for the time, on childhood and education. In addition to this, the impacts of his work will also be covered with a particular interest in how Rousseau’s work affected parenting at the time and how society viewed his approach as a whole. Ultimately, I would like to make the point that Rousseau was an opposer of contemporary society at the time, trying to argue from a different perspective than that of politics or religion. It was a highly influential discourse that aided the developing idea that children should be allowed to be children. However, that is not to say that Rousseau’s work was not challenged or did not oppose other discourses. The likes of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are also influential perspectives on childhood and education for their time and provide alternative views to that of Rousseau and so, will also be discussed within the essay.

The most important point Rousseau begins to make is that children are born innocent. He suggested that as infants, we have basic needs such as food, water, shelter, and companionship and that because we are not competing with each other for any other factors, we are innocent. This innocence he later believes, is corrupted by civilization. “Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of everything; everything degenerates in the hands of man” (Rousseau, 1792, p.37). What he means by this, is that later in life, other factors may affect survival or social relations, which leads to feelings of jealousy, for example. He then goes on to explain that for children to remain free from the toxicity of society, we need to allow childhood to develop within the child. The emphasis is on a physical connection to nature itself through play. If the child spends more time doing so, they can become a more natural learner and will gain more agency to make rational judgments as they grow older.

This then brings us to the question: what role does an adult have in this process? In his work on Emile (1762), Rousseau takes on the role of a ‘tutor’ for a young boy Emile. It is his task to ensure that Emile’s innocence remains as he develops. To do this, he manipulates the environment around Emile in a way that allows the child to become more agentic. He stresses the point that children need to work problems out for themselves rather than telling them what to do. Allowing the child to run around, play, and interact with nature meant that there was less of a focus on formal education such as reading, which Rousseau did not agree with. He believed that books would detach the child from ‘the real world’ and that experiencing things first-hand was part of the process of learning to be a child.

In addition to his emphasis on play and exercise, Rousseau acknowledged the relationship between mother and child. At the time, many households would have a wet nurse rather than the mother personally breastfeeding the child. This is also something that Rousseau did not necessarily agree with. He infers that the bond between mother and child would be a lot stronger if the child is breastfed by the mother. This again, stresses the importance of naturalness in childhood which in turn forms a child that is free from the unscrupulousness of society.

As we can see from this, there is a heavy influence of romanticism on Rousseau’s work. “Children have a natural goodness and clarity of vision. Redolent with the reason that will form the society of tomorrow, their natural characteristics are those we can all learn from; they represent a condition lost or forgotten and this one worthy of defense (and susceptible to sentimentalization)” (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998, p. 13). There is an ideal of childhood that presents it as something that should be enjoyed for what it is, rather than being disregarded. There began to be an increasing interest in how children learn, with a reiterated importance on saving the innocence of children at the time, making a constant link between children and nature.

This promptly brings us to how Rousseau’s work impacted society and whether his romanticized view of childhood had an effect on the way people viewed childhood. Rousseau’s approach to childhood had a large impact, particularly on parents at the time. Many adults were reading his works, changing the perspective of parenting and its effects on childhood for many people. It was an approach that resulted in controversial discussion. For example, the point made previously about breastfeeding. Because so many women were using wet nurses, the idea of breastfeeding being healthier for your baby sparked discussion amongst women on which of the two is more appropriate for the child. In addition to this, concerns were raised about education in schools of the time. It led to children’s games becoming more important parts of everyday life as well as school life in countries such as England. Because his views could be perceived as an opposition to various religious and political views of childhood at the time, it could almost be said that his work attempted to rebel against a corrupt society, bringing the focus onto the child and their right to agency.

On the other hand, Rousseau’s work does not remain unchallenged. Other discourses of childhood are also influential perspectives that oppose Rousseau’s romanticized view of childhood such as Thomas Hobbes’s Puritan discourse and John Locke’s Tabula Rasa discourse.

The Puritan discourse puts a large emphasis on the idea of original sin. It derives from the religion of Christianity and suggests that children are innately evil, contain sin, and need absolution or saving. This particular discourse was formed after the Reformation period in which the Church of England gained power and painted the child as deceiving, immoral, and malevolent. Furthermore, persisting to bring up the importance of saving the soul of the child. We can compare this view to the Dionysian child who is described as mischievous and in need of gratification.

However, John Locke argued the idea of children being born as a blank slate (tabula rasa) and are influenced by experience and education during their childhood development. This approach heavily promotes the idea of education and the expectations of a child to be a citizen of society. He suggests that children should be encouraged to be curious and that adults should take extra care when answering questions asked by children. Although it suggests that the focus should be child-centered, there is a distinct interest in what part the child will play in the future of society. It is also inferred that strong, authoritarian figures are necessary during childhood to ensure that the child is not impacted negatively, whereas, in the case of the child, a lack of authority in a figure such as a mother could lead to such negative impacts. Nonetheless, Locke does mention that play can also be important during childhood so long as it promotes an educational outlook. Therefore, giving power to the educator.

As we can see, each perspective is vastly different from the other and differs from the perspective of Rousseau. Locke’s view is one of its independence from the other two approaches. It takes an authoritarian perspective of childhood and emphasizes the role of education with the future kept closely in mind. While Hobbes and Rousseau seem to remain at opposing ends. Hobbes’s puritan discourse can be easily traced back to Christianity with the idea of original sin being the main feature of the idea of the child and a direct focus on the adult being the savior of the child. Indeed, we then have Rousseau who attempts to completely oppose this approach by delving into the deeper meanings of childhood and tries to make connections to children and nature to suggest that the environment a child is in and the social pressures surrounding them are what causes corruption. So, it could be said that although Hobbes and Rousseau argue different points, they can interlink at different points in a child’s life. For example, a child may be born with an innocence but, ultimately becomes the ‘evil’ child Hobbes describes, just later on in life after being corrupted by society.

Be that as it may, if we reflect on Rousseau’s work with Emile, we can see that Rousseau plays a large part in Emile’s life and we could almost argue that he has a lot of control over what Emile does throughout the day and what he sees. If we base the idea of childhood on Rousseau’s work, we could argue that the child don’t have as much say in their childhood as they could. Because the approach emphasizes the protection of innocence from society, it means that adults must, in a way, shelter the child from certain aspects of reality and society to do so. Having so much control over the environment poses the question: how much agency does the child have? Compared to other discourses, Rousseau’s does allow the child to be more in touch with themselves and nature, allowing for more independence overplay and exploration. However, when the adult is ‘shielding’ said child from the corruption of the world, they are not able to make their judgment of society or the environment around them. However, Rousseau may argue that the child is not yet capable of making rational judgments if they do not yet fully understand their environment. This is because he argues that the ability to make rational judgments is a result of learning through play and repeating tasks after they fail to solve problems, etc.

While it is important to consider the other discourses that attempt to describe the child and childhood and oppose Rousseau’s idea of the romanticized child, Rousseau explored the perspective in such a refreshingly holistic way that brings to light, the depth of childhood and its connections to nature and society. He highlighted the point that children should have agency and it is their right to have that. He showed society that learning does not have to be mundane, academic, or systematic, it can be adventurous, curious, and fun. In settings where this is allowed, the child can make connections with nature and with themselves to experience a childhood that is more freeing and will ultimately be a more independent citizen who remains uncorrupted by social factors. Rousseau attempted to critique society controversially, yet so insightful to the people of the time and it is that kind of attention to his work that makes it relevant even today. His work is still relevant in today’s society, it is important to appreciate that children are capable, agentic beings with their own free will and can learn in a multitude of ways that do not necessarily have to be through a book. The importance of play has come to light much more in recent years and we now understand that it is a crucial part of development so, to conclude, Rousseau’s work is one of many that started a discussion leading to a shift in how people viewed childhood. 

Locke Defence For A Right To Private Property And The Unlimited Accumulation Of Goods

John Locke was an English philosopher and physician widely regarded as one of the most influential of Enlightenment thinkers, commonly known as the ‘Father of Liberalism’. Locke’s most famous 123 work ‘Second Treatise’, sets out a liberal premise of a community of free, equal individuals, all possessed of natural rights. Since these individuals will want to acquire goods and will come into inevitable conflict, he invokes a natural law of morality to govern them before they enter into society.

There is a presumption that people will understand, that in order to protect themselves and their property, they must come together into some sort of political body and agree to adhere to certain standards of behaviour. They therefore relinquish some of their natural rights to enter into a social compact. This view is in opposition to Hobbes who argues that human beings pursue their own self-interest relentlessly, mechanically avoiding pain and pursuing pleasure. As a result, life is ‘nasty, brutish and short’.

Defining the right to private property is difficult because the concept means different things in different countries and as R.H Tawney argues, ‘It is idle to present a case for or against private property without specifying the particular forms of property to which the reference is made.’ Many 5 argue that the concept itself defies definition. The concept of ownership itself is defined differently in different countries. For example, in the US, an owner can leave his goods in his will to more or less anyone he pleases but the owner’s liberty is less in England and is even more curtailed by statute law in New Zealand.

For the purposes of this essay, I will use Locke’s definition of the property of a person. Each person owns his or her own body, and all the labour that they perform with the body. Locke argues that when an individual adds their own labour, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labour. This constitutes Locke’s labour theory of property. These ideas are first proposed in ‘The Second Treatise of Government’ (1690). The theory is rooted in laws of nature that Locke identifies, which permit individuals to appropriate and exercise control rights over things in the world, like land and other material resources. He uses the example of picking an apple. The apple becomes the property of the person when they pick it, because they have added their labour to it. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general because each person has the license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.

John Locke justifies private property and the unlimited right of acquisition because God gave humans the earth to share in common and therefore nobody has a natural right to own property and exclude others. However, Locke places a bound on this type of acquisition. A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage. Firstly, everyone has a right to the products of their labour insofar as there is enough left for everyone else. Secondly, no one has the right to more than one can personally make use of before it spoils. This relates to his conception of nature as a gift from God. It was given to us not to destroy or ruin but cultivate and enjoy. As described in Chapter V, paragraph 31, ‘Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy.’ Locke applies these rules to land: a person in a state of nature can claim land by adding labour to it, for example, building a house on it or farming on it. However, only so much as that person can reasonably use without waste. Locke then defines labour as the determining factor of value, the tool by which humans make their world a more advantageous and rewarding place to inhabit.

However, Locke’s idea is unhelpful when considering a country in which all the land and resources are enclosed. Does this mean that after the initial enclosure of resources and land, all subsequent transferrals and changes of wealth are legitimate? Currently, there is great wealth inequality in the world. Given that the world’s richest 1%, those with more than $1 million, own 45% of the world’s wealth whereas adults with less than $10,000 in wealth make up 64% of the world’s population but hold less than 2% of global wealth. Is this all perfectly legitimate?

Locke attempts to counteract this criticism using the concept of money to counteract his ‘spoilage limitation’.The spoilage limitation does not limit the amount of property one may justly acquire; it merely prohibits claims of ownership to perishable goods that will spoil while in one’s possession: ‘the exceeding of the bounds of his just Property not lying in the largeness of his Possession, but in the perishing of anything uselessly in it’. Therefore, one may expand one’s stock of private property by exchanging perishable goods that one cannot use for useful goods, as barter. Or one may exchange perishable goods for durable goods that will not spoil, such as precious metals. Therefore, according to Locke, as precious metals were widely accepted as money, it became possible to accumulate potentially unlimited amounts of property without violating the spoilage limitation. Using the system of money, we have tacitly consented to allow people to have more than that which won’t spoil. We have implicitly agreed to the consequences of this system by using money. The inequality is ‘fair’ and just because it was said to arise from men’s ‘differ(ing) degrees of industry’. It is argued that since some work harder, they have a legitimate right to lay claim to a quantity of property in excess of that which they, with their own labour, could use. However, it could be argued that there is a lingering tension between Locke’s conclusion and his previous caveat of accumulation of goods, so long as there is enough for everyone else. He never explains why anyone should ever find himself with a greater quantity of a good than he could use himself; there is no rationale for such accumulation. He argues that it would be ‘foolish… to hoard up more than one could make use of’. Moreover, Locke failed to argue that production was undertaken for the purpose of exchange rather than exchange emerging as a consequence of surplus production. This means that it is unclear why anyone would labour to acquire more of a thing than he could use before it would spoil. Without established markets, it would be risky to specialise. Everyone would have to believe that others would specialise in the various necessities of life before committing to specialisation themselves. Even if one could rationalise specialisation, it is difficult to see why anyone would choose to specialise in the production of perishables, for example, producing nuts which are more long lasting than plums . Therefore, 11

Locke’s attempt to respond to the criticism of his theory fails. Locke’s labour theory of property has been criticised by modern academics who doubt that mixing something owned with something unowned could imbue the object with ownership. For example, Robert Nozick gives the example of ‘if I own a can of tomato juice and spill it in the sea so that its molecules (made radioactive, so I can check this) mingle evenly throughout the sea, do I thereby come to own the sea, or have I foolishly dissipated my tomato juice.’ Instead, mixing one’s labour with 12 something in nature causes one to lose one’s labour without making any gain. Therefore, what Locke really was arguing is that what one ought to own is not the full resulting product of one’s labour, but rather the value added to the original product before the labouring took place. Another objection to Locke’s theory is posited by Marx who argues that he represents two contrary conceptions. First, he fails to acknowledge that the means of production is privately owned by every producer. Secondly, the capitalist relations of production prevail. These two presumptions are 13 common to the whole succeeding political economy. Another thinker who failed to recognise these facts, integral to the political economy, is Adam Smith whose account of primitive-original accumulation depicted a peaceful process, in which some workers laboured more diligently than others and gradually built up wealth, eventually leaving the less diligent workers to accept living wages for their labour. Marx also rejected this account as ‘childish’, instead stating that, in the words of David Harvey, primitive accumulation ‘entailed taking land, say, enclosing it, and expelling a resident population to create a landless proletariat, and then releasing the land into the privatised mainstream of capital accumulation’. This would be accomplished through violence, war, enslavement and colonialism. According to Marx, the whole purpose of primitive accumulation is to privatise the means of production, so that the exploiting owners can make money from the surplus labour of those who, lacking other means, must work for them. Primitive accumulation is simply the expropriation of the direct producers. As he said in an essay entitled ‘On the Jewish Question’, ‘the right of man to property is the right to enjoy his possessions and dispose of the same arbitrarily without regard for other men, independently, from society, the right or selfishness’. Therefore, Marx argues that Locke’s theory fails because it doesn’t recognise two necessary truths about a modern economy.

Instead, Marx employed a theory of value which holds that the value of a commodity is the socially necessary labour time invested in it. According to this model, capitalists compensate the worker for the necessary labour only instead of paying the workers the full value of the commodities they produce. Marx theorised that the gap between the value a worker produces and his wage is a form of unpaid labour, known as surplus value. Markets tend to obscure the social relationships and processes of production but people are usually only highly aware of commodities and therefore don’t think about the relationships and labour they represent. Defining the bourgeoisie as the middle class with particular reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes, Marx aims to resolve the bourgeois contradiction between the ownership of the means of production and the ‘social act’ of production itself by proposing socialisation of the means of production. To remove the ‘disturbances’ of capitalist economy, Marx postulated ‘rational management’ of the economy, which would replace the ‘chaotic’ market forces driven by a ‘sum of individual preferences’.

In conclusion, Locke’s theory is not sufficient in explaining a modern economy. In a modern country, all land and resources are enclosed. Does this mean any subsequent changes in wealth are legitimate? A recent statistic, released by the House of Commons, states that by 2030, the richest 1% will own two-thirds of global wealth. The vast inequality that exists in the global economy cannot be well founded. There is still a tension between Locke’s caveat and his conclusion, even after he tries and defends his point using the concept of money. Additionally, Locke’s theory does not stand up to criticism posed by Marx. Failure to acknowledge realities of the modern political economy, like privately owned means of production or the capitalist relations of production, means his theory is lacking in many respects.

References

  1. Hirschmann, N. (2009). ​Gender, Class, and Freedom in Modern Political Theory​. Princeton: Princeton University Press, p.79.
  2. Sharma, U. and Sharma, S. (2006). ​Western Political Thought​. Washington: Atlantic Publishers, p.440.
  3. Korab-Karpowicz, J. (2010). ​A History of Political Philosophy: From Thucydides to Locke​. New York: Global Scholarly Publications, p.291.
  4. Hobbes, T. (2019). Leviathan. [S.I.]: Ancient Wisdom Publicatio, p.186.
  5. ​Panarchy.org. (n.d.). ​R. H. Tawney, On Property (1920)​. [online] Available at: https://www.panarchy.org/tawney/property.html [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  6. Locke, J. (1980). ​Second treatise of government and A letter concerning toleration​. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., pp.18-30.
  7. ​Gronow, J. (2016). ​On the Formation of Marxism: Karl Kautsky’s Theory of Capitalism, the Marxism of the Second International and Karl Marx’s Critique of Political Economy​. Brill, pp.225-251.
  8. ​Locke, J. (1980). ​Second treatise of government and A letter concerning toleration​. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., pp.18-30.
  9. Locke, J. (1980). Second treatise of government and A letter concerning toleration. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., pp.18-30.
  10. Inequality.org. (n.d.). ​Global Inequality – Inequality.org​. [online] Available at: https://inequality.org/facts/global-inequality/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  11. Bell, S., Henry, J. and Wray, L. (2004). The Chartalist Critique of John Locke’s Theory of Property, Accumulation, and Money: or, is it Moral to Trade Your Nuts for Gold?. ​Review of Social Economy​, 62(1), pp.51-65.
  12. Nozick, R. (1974). ​Anarchy, state and Utopia​. Basic Books.
  13. Gronow, J. (2016). On the Formation of Marxism: Karl Kautsky’s Theory of Capitalism, the Marxism of the Second International and Karl Marx’s Critique of Political Economy. Brill, pp.225-251.
  14. Harvey, D. (2020). ​Reading Marx’s Capital Vol 1 – Class 12, Chapters 26-33​. [online] Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey. Available at: http://davidharvey.org/2008/09/capital-class-12/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  15. Harvey, D. (2005). Brief History of Neoliberalism, A. Oxford University Press, pp.149, 145-46.
  16. Marx, K. (n.d.). Economic Manuscripts: Capital Vol. I – Chapter Thirty Two. [online] Marxists.org. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch32.htm [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  17. Marx, K. (n.d.). ​On The Jewish Question by Karl Marx​. [online] Marxists.org. Available at: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/ [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  18. ​En.wikipedia.org. (n.d.). ​Marxian economics​. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_economics [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  19. Lexico Dictionaries | English. (n.d.). ​Bourgeois | Definition of Bourgeois by Lexico​. [online] Available at: https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/bourgeois [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].
  20. ​Dembinsky, P. (2020). ​The Logic of The Planned Economy​. Oxford: Claredon Press, pp.22-23.
  21. Frisby, D. (2018). ​Wealth inequality is soaring – here are the 10 reasons why it’s happening | Dominic Frisby​. [online] The Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/12/wealth-inequality-reasons-richest-global-gap [Accessed 21 Feb. 2020].

Strengths And Weaknesses Of Viewpoint Of John Locke

John Locke was born on August 22, 1632, in Wrington, Somerset, a small village in England. Locke grew up with both parents Puritans and as such, he was raised that way. His religion believed that everyone was born into a state of nature and that everyone had the right to pursue happiness. His father’s connections and allegiance to the English government allowed Locke to receive an impeccable education. Throughout his childhood, he was homeschooled. He then had the opportunity to attend Westminster high school furthering his education at the Christ Church of the University of Oxford. At Oxford, Locke studied medicine, which played a heavy role in his future as he soon thereafter became a physician. He also studied philosophy, learning the classical material of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle, however finding the works of more modern philosophers like Descartes, more intriguing. Although growing up in a household of Puritans, Locke had a more liberal standpoint on life. Locke became a teacher at Christ Church, but his dislike of theology and his interest in medicine and science caused him to follow the advice of his scientific mentor Robert Boyle, who recommended that Locke concentrate on scientific research instead. In the summer of 1667, Locke befriended Anthony Ashley Cooper; the Earl of Shaftsbury, and was hired as his physician. As the Earl was involved in the government, this helped Locke integrate into the role as a government official charged with collecting information about trade and colonies which later helped him become an economic writer, a political activist, and a revolutionary whose cause triumphed in the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Having varying stances on important topics, Locke became a highly influential philosopher, writing essays and treatises on topics such as political philosophy, education, and the government. Many of Locke’s writings helped found modern western philosophy and he became known as the father of classical liberalism. He is best known for his three works; Essay Concerning Human Understanding where he discussed the principle of religion, morality, and science, The Letter Concerning Toleration which pertained to the separation of the church and the state and The Second Treatise on Civil Government where he challenged the law of Divine Right of Kings by arguing that sovereignty resided in the people. In 1704, Locke died from a decline in his health after living a long and fulfilling life in Essex, England.

Locke’s Philosophy on Law

John Locke was a strong believer in natural law. He strongly believed in natural rights; rights that cannot be restrained by human-enacted laws and were therefore universal and inalienable. These rights should be protected in the constitution, falling under the boundaries of positive law.

He believed that humans, who were god’s property were entitled by god to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Locke believed in the existence of natural law and held it to the best indicator of what was considered ‘right’. He held to the fact that people were decent beings and were prone to being naturally good and peaceful, however, Locke knew that a social contract was needed because he knew that at times, people could be selfish. Locke believed that the ownership of property was created by the application of labor to achieve it, and humans make objects into their property by applying labor. When someone picked an apple, it was theirs, when someone found gold, it was theirs and so thus, anyone who worked for something was entitled to own the outcome. Locke believed that property laws existed naturally before the formation of the social contract and that property preceded government. Thus the government cannot “dispose of the estates of the subjects arbitrarily” (Locke, Second Treatise) and shouldn’t be allowed to infringe on an individual’s right to own property or obstruct the use of it. Even nowadays, in modern society, people still feel strongly about their right to property. For example, one phrase that John Locke would have supported is “Do you have a search warrant?” which would prevent the authorities from barging into private property and taking an individual’s property without reason. To add on, Locke believed that people should be free to do as they pleased and the government should only intervene when it is necessary to protect someone/someone’s property. The government cannot arbitrarily act to infringe people’s rights and freedoms and thus believed in minimal government involvement. He used that claim to justify the idea of a single legitimate government as the result of a social contract where people in the state of nature would freely transfer some of their rights to the government in order to better ensure the comfortable enjoyment of their lives, liberty, and property. However, this was only conditionally as if the people did not feel that the government was doing its duties, they had the moral duty and right to withdraw the governmental power from the government to either themselves or to a better replacement.

Locke wrote The Second Treatise on Civil Government (also known as the Social Contract) which talked about natural rights and the role of the government. This was highly influential on Thomas Jefferson in terms of forming the basis for the Declaration of Independence as well as the civil rights granted by the US Constitution. In regards to the government, Locke thought that the government consisting of the monarchy, Parliament, and church was too powerful at that time. He supported the idea of the separation of the different powers of the monarchy, Parliament, and the church and proposed that there should be a public authority that should enforce laws instead of the government. Through this, he hoped that people would more say in the creation of laws than just everyone listening blindly to the state. His ideas on the government heavily influenced, both the American and French Revolutions, and his ideas of people’s rights and the role of civil government provided strong support for the intellectual movements of both revolutions. He also believed in secularism with his essays on religious tolerance within the government providing an early outline for the separation of church and state. Adding on, Locke felt that when you violate someone else’s natural rights, you forfeit your own rights. If an individual did so, they should be punished by the people- not the state and the punishment should seek restitution for the victim, and deter the crime from happening again. Later on, he thought of the idea of an impartial judge with the authority to determine the severity of the crime and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime, according to the established law would help the legal system be fairer. Furthermore, Locke believed in ‘Tabula Rasa’ which means Blank Slate in Latin. This theory stated that every individual born, was born with no prior knowledge, destiny, or concept of human behavior. This went against most views of the 17th century as many believed that one was born with their fate already determined by God. Locke argued that all perception of human behavior is formed after birth via the senses and therefore everyone was created equal. Regarding religion, Locke stated that people had no right to judge the truths of religion because humans did not know the absolute truth. He argued as religion was against violence, the religious wars occurring in his era in accordance with religion were wrong. Locke, however, supported the idea of letting people believe in their own religion as it would help keep order in society. In today’s society, we see a lot of Locke’s views on our laws.

Like all theories, Locke’s philosophy was both heavily praised and critiqued revealing its many strengths as well as its flaws. Many of the strengths of Locke’s philosophy of law come from natural law. In natural law, it is believed that law is made for the common good and similarly, Canada’s legal system incorporates this within our society and tries to treat every citizen equally. However, as Locke believed in natural law, he also believed in a social contract as he knew that while it is good, there is also bad. This can also be seen within our society and justice system as while laws are put into place to prevent people from stealing, it is common knowledge and an unspoken rule that if it isn’t yours, then you wouldn’t take it. This is an example of natural law and how people are inherently good, however, there are instances where people would disregard this and see something lying around that isn’t theirs and take it. This is why Locke also believed in the aspect of positive law; to deter people from committing these unlawful actions. Locke was also praised for this work Second Treatise of Government, which influenced many laws around the world. For instance, The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 7 states: ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.’ And in 1948, Canada signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of which reads: Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.” Many other western countries followed in creating laws regarding Locke’s philosophy on the law. Locke also believed in the pursuit of happiness that everyone was born in a state of nature and given the opportunity to achieve happiness. No one can stop another person from achieving their own happiness as long as it doesn’t cause harm to other people. For example, if a person wanted to marry a person of their own gender, same-marriage, they should be able to, even if it went against Locke’s personal beliefs, as an individual should pursue their happiness. Additionally, Locke’s idea of separating powers is used in our current day legal system. He believed that the legislative power should be divided between the monarch and the parliament and that no one should have absolute authority. His philosophy can be seen in our modern-day government as the powers of government are divided between municipal, provincial, and federal with the monarch also playing a role. However, every system has its flaws. Locke’s theories had just as many weaknesses as their strengths.

Locke believed in the system of majority rules seen through his belief in an election of the government in which many would be happy. He believed that the views of the majority of the population overruled the opinions of the minority’s which can be a con unto itself as this could be unfair to some of the minority groups, who wouldn’t get to have their opinion heard at all. Even if the majority voted for an idea, it also doesn’t mean that the idea is necessarily correct or morally right. For example, when Hilter commandeered the Holocaust, many of the German citizens at the beginning thought that blaming the Jews for all the wrongs of Germany was a good idea. With many of these Germans citizens, non- Jewish, in favor of retaliation against the Jews, the Jewish people who were the minority had no say in the decision at all. Thus, it can be seen that while the majority ruled theory was followed, it was not necessarily right. He also believed in minimal government involvement, which also had its downfalls as then people would have to govern themselves, which related to his belief in natural law. However, it can be seen in modern society that it cannot be assumed that all individuals are good, as people have different morals. Government involvement in civil matters also ensured that everyone was treated equally and equity was present. As not all citizens have the same social standing and some need help more than others, the government help provides food stamps, community housing, etc. Taxes based on social standing and funded programs for the needy helped out people that were in need of help. With Locke’s ideology, it was believed that people would just naturally help each other out in times of need, however with not everyone being naturally selfless and kind, many people are left behind in times of need. Thus, with active government involvement, it is ensured that people are treated equally and that everyone benefits in society. Furthermore, regarding Locke’s views on letting people control how people were punished for the crimes they’ve committed, and not having a higher power set our guidelines for the offense, punishments would vary in terms of severity for similar crimes with no precedence to make the punishment standard.

Locke’s Position on Assisted Suicide

Locke would support the idea of assisted suicide, according to his philosophical ideas. First off, he strongly believed in the right to property and one’s body is self property. Thus, it can be said that an individual should be able to make their own decision to willfully die as they possess ownership of their own body. Furthermore, Locke believed in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. and the fact that people suffer from terminal illnesses is no happiness to them, it is inhumane to deny someone a humane way to die peacefully. As long as people are capable of making the decision, they should have the right to decide whether they want to live or die and choose what is best for them. For example, regarding the Rodriguez v. British Columbia case, Locke would’ve been on the side of Sue Rodriguez, who was a woman suffering from ALS and had requested the right to assisted suicide with the help of a physician. She has argued that the prohibition of assisted suicide violated section 7 of the charter which states that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,’ which is what Locke had, in fact, created. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this law would remain as it was and euthanasia in Canada remained illegal up until 2016, where the Supreme court finally ruled that the prohibition of euthanasia was unconstitutional. Locke’s stance on this would reflect that Sue was not happy and that her pursuit of happiness was a right that she had. If she was suffering away the rest of her life, then there was no reason to live. Furthermore, he would’ve stated that the decision for her euthanasia was not up to the government- The Supreme Court- as Locke believed in minimal government involvement and that the government shouldn’t infringe on an individual’s right to property, in which Sue’s body was her own property. As stated by Locke, “We are free to do those things which we both will to do and are physically capable of doing” (Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding) and this argument can be applied in regards to the controversial issue of assisted suicide.

Locke’s Stance on Civil Disobedience

John Locke would have supported the idea of civil disobedience to its full extent. He believed that civil society was a contract. The people would give up some of their individual rights and surrender certain freedoms enjoyed under the state of nature, in return for the government’s protection and guarantee of life, liberty, and property; exercised according to the rule of law. However, if the government failed to protect these rights, acted against the interests of the citizens, and instead infringed on people’s rights, then the contract established was void. If this contract was broken, the people then were morally obligated and had the right to revolt and overthrow the government, replacing it with one that would better reflect society’s needs as they see fit. He believed that citizens would be able to withdraw their obligation to obey through elections or any other means necessary, which would include rebellions and violence. Thus, while Locke would wholeheartedly support the idea of civil disobedience, if civil disobedience did not yield the right results, Locke would want to take it two steps further and use further means such as violence to achieve the intended results. He believed that the right of revolution essentially acts as a safeguard against tyranny and should always be an option.

John Locke’s ‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’: Summary

‘An Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ does not operate under the pretense of possessing a store of wisdom to be passed on to others, rather it aims to dispel sources of intolerance, stimulate others to think for themselves, and promote the cause of freedom enacted through thought and action. As an adequate representation of the spirit of the modern age, it has done much to shape the course of many different fields of inquiry. The Western world will forever be imprinted upon by the ideas outlined in this monumental work, to which freedoms present today can be attributed.

Any adequate appreciation of Locke’s work must consider the major objective of and circumstances under which the book was written. Locke, who had witnessed the results of tyranny on the part of both political and religious institutions, was unalterably opposed to tyranny in any of the forms of manifestation and all devices for controlling the minds and activities of men. It was his intense devotion to the cause of human liberty that inspired his work supporting the protection and defense of human rights.

Locke’s serious and systematic inquiry into the problems of epistemology marked an important beginning of the rise of such inquiry becoming a central issue in philosophical discussions. He met regularly with a small group of friends to exchange views on important questions relating to science, morals, and religion, and the injustice he witnessed and so strongly opposed. It was the lack of a definite conclusion during these exchanges that led Locke to give the possibilities and limitations of the human mind careful consideration. He struggled with the absence of a last and final word and the lack of mutual agreement among those whom he scrutinized.

When exploring the capacity of the human mind, Locke becomes particularly keen on demolishing the nativist position. After careful deliberation, he arrives at the disbelief in innate knowledge. When dispelling innate theoretical principles, Locke directs his focus toward the principles that he views as the best possible candidate for universal consent through the formulation of a strong nativist position. He objects to it, then revises the nativist position, continues to object to the newly proposed position, and so on, until the nativist position is so utterly weak it is trivial. The idea of ‘whatever it is’, God, and infinity are all rejected by Locke.

The structure of his argument against innate principles can be broken down into three key elements. First, he argues that if, in fact, there is innate knowledge then, such knowledge is composed of innate theoretical principles that everyone would assent to. Secondly, there are no principles to which everyone assents. The lack of agreement among those whom he engaged in philosophical debate indicated to him that surely there were none. Third, therefore, there are no innate theoretical principles. Though simple in formulation, Locke leaves no stone unturned.

He felt humanity would benefit greatly from knowing precisely what areas of inquiry we can never obtain more than probable knowledge for, and what we can be certain of. To Locke, the freedom of the individual to think and act for himself necessarily entailed a better understanding of the processes that enable human minds to arrive at truth. It is only once we achieve such understanding, then time will not be wasted on questions that cannot be answered. Furthermore, an appreciation of the limitations of the human mind would encourage tolerance toward individuals holding different and conflicting opinions; this tolerance would safeguard against persecution and all its evils.

Critical Essay on Locke’s Ideas and Their Relationship with Objects

This essay will primarily discuss Locke’s notion of ideas and more importantly their relationship with objects. I will attempt to show that some fundamental aspects of his philosophy, which he deems to conserve, force him to a representational cognitive theory; however, any interpretation of said theory seems to underpin another fundamental aspect of his philosophy.

Ideas and their relationship with objects Locke’s philosophy are of utmost importance as upon this his philosophy rests. As he states ‘my Purpose [is] to enquire into the Original, Certainty, and Extent of humane Knowledge; together, with the Grounds and Degrees of Belief, Opinion, and Assent’. As we shall see Lockean ideas are the material of the entirety of human knowledge and the certainty of such knowledge is a veridical relationship of ideas.

Consequently, we need to understand Locke’s conception of an idea. Locke defines idea in the limits of human understanding as ‘whatsoever the Mind perceives in itself or is the immediate object of Perception, Thought, or Understanding, that I call Idea. Iidea encompasses all that comes to one’s mind, whether it be a species, phantasm, etc. From his definitions, we obtain the essential features of an idea. First ideas are purely mental realities. They only exist within the mind of man and so are numerically different from the extra mental object. Secondly, they are the immediate perception of the mind. Mental actions have ideas as their objects, in other words there a mental action cannot occur without an idea and an idea cannot be without a mental action. Locke does hold that ideas do not need to refer to anything outside the mind. For example, one can remember the idea of the night without there being a night present experimentally. However all knowledge, for Locke, is based on experience and so even though in some cases nominal substance may not exist.

With this conception of an idea, there is an apparent objection. If all that Man’s mind has direct access to are these mind-dependent realities then he is trapped in a prison of his own ideas. He has no experience of the outside. The empiricism supported by Locke falls and even more importantly, in Locke’s time, Man worshiping God turns to Man worshiping his own ideas. Moreover, if we can give some kind of external content to ideas, can we propose a one-to-one type relationship between ideas and objects to give some certainty and justification of the outside world?

Before putting forth possible answers to this problem, if there are any, we need to consider certain types of ideas in Locke’s thought. Following Locke, in a corpuscularian manner, we will consider two categorizations he makes of Ideas. The first, and most fundamental categorization is that of simple and complex ideas. Locke also puts forth what kind of ideas man can experience. The simple and complex dichotomy given encompasses all types of ideas one can possibly have. What concerns us for our purposes in this essay is simple ideas as in his atomistic way, Locke defined complex ideas as a composition or relationship between simple ideas. Moreover, simple ideas are further categorized further we shall consider simple ideas of sensation and simple ideas of primary qualities. A simple idea is defined as ‘being … in itself uncompounded, contains in it nothing but one uniform Appearance, or Conception in the Mind, and is not distinguishable into different Ideas’. The main reasoning for such a categorization is due to Locke’s support of empiricism that all knowledge is grounded in experience. Simple ideas are passively received in so far as the outside things act upon the mind via the senses. In such a process there is no will to interfere or change this operation or even create alike in one’s mind. More importantly for Locke, such ideas, in so far as they represent, are ‘real’ and ‘adequate’ and ‘true’. Such attributes of ideas are in relation to what they represent, which shall be considered later in the essay.

Before doing so we need to consider another fundamental distinction of Locke’s philosophy with respect to external objects. Like those before him, Locke posited a difference between primary and secondary qualities. The former has been described as those properties intrinsic to the object whether or not it is perceived or not. For example the shape of an object. In contrast, secondary qualities are powers to produce within us some ideas. Such distinction presupposes some kind of representation theory of perception as this dichotomy puts forth a relationship between ideas in the mind being produced by external material objects. Furthermore, this dichotomy states that the effects produced within us represent real entities in the external world only when in relation to primary qualities. This is all in concordance with his belief in the best mechanistic science.

This part of the taxonomy of Lockean ideas given serves as a basis for the veridical relationship for Locke. The two types of ideas lead to certain inferences of some kind of cognitive theory. Simple ideas it seems have an inherent link to the outside world being the epitome of representation while primary qualities are those things that are truly in objects rather than minds. Therefore if we were to find the strongest defense of knowledge of the outside world in Locke’s account it would contain these two notions.

Let us consider the real, true, and adequacy of simple ideas. Locke defines ideas as being real if they have a Foundation in Nature,- [that] have a Conformity with the real Being, and Existence of Things, or with their Archetypes’. Adequate ideas are those which perfectly represent those Archetypes, which the Mind supposes them to be taken from,- which it intends them to stand for, and to which it refers them, ‘. And lastly, an idea is true ˜if the implicit judgment accompanying it – the judgment that the idea corresponds to its object – is true. In relation to simple ideas if it is real are consequently adequate and true due to the nature of simple ideas. This conformity of something real, which is sometimes called real knowledge by Locke, is deemed to be so as its function is a sign or mark of the powers of that object. They are the constant effects that produce an idea within us. It would seem a simple idea to give Locke some kind of external content. However, the relationship between it and ideas can take many forms.

One of the most important and nuanced interpretations given is of a casual nature. One possibility, given by Ayers, is that a simple idea in the mind is caused by a specific occasion. In that instance, the object has caused a certain idea in the subject. Another problem is that such a type of correspondence does not fulfill the role that simple ideas serve in Locke’s enterprise. It is strikingly against the pragmatic nature of ideas to allow the man to create a fruitful life as to be able to distinguish between things for his use. This also does not do much for the skeptical problem. Although we can explain some content it does not give a necessary nor sufficient account of a one-to-one relationship. To combat this Ayers and others have also posited an externalism of knowledge. Meaning the representation of ideas only comes into play when they are paired with a judgment. For example, if one were to see a square object from afar which caused the idea of a circle, when the judgment that that effect is caused by such an object is given, for the subject the idea is real. This interpretation has a problem. Such a propositional reading lacks the ability to keep clear of innatism, which is contradictory to Locke’s enterprise, as to create a reference to an object one has to have innate ideas of an object.

If the relationship between idea and object is to be fixed to defend the skeptical challenge, the causal relation has to create an isomorphism between idea and object. One possibility is that an idea type is always caused by that particular object type. For example, the simple primary quality of an object will cause a simple idea, and similarly simple secondary qualities. In relation to secondary qualities, although Locke states they do not resemble anything of the body, that does not mean they have no representational power. In this interpretation, both primary and secondary qualities are powers that constantly produce a specific idea in the mind. And it is through such a correspondence simple ideas are real and thus true. However, such an interpretation does not take into account perceptual error. If one were to see, like before, a square object from afar that produced the idea of a circle this correspondence would fall. If we take perceptual error as foundational to Locke’s philosophy, as his works indicate, to accommodate it we need to modify our casual relation. One possibility is to add the caveat of normal conditions. This may seem to solve the problem but many problems arise with it. Firstly such an idea has no textual basis. Philosophically, even if there was a basis, this would imply that real ideas are found when such normal conditions are met, however, this is in tension with the claim that simple ideas are all real. In our example shape is a simple primary idea and so either the passivity of simple ideas which root its realness falls as something has intervened between object and subject and thus simple ideas are also not adequate or there is no such thing as a perceptual error.

The interpretations so far given have consisted of somewhat causal grounds between object and idea however another variation is a teleological one; that we take representation to mean what God ordained to cause an idea. The problems presented before can now be dissolved in a good god who creates man to prosper in this life. This role that God plays can also be equated to any type of causation paradigm one conjures up. In either opinion, the idea is fixed by an extrinsic factor. With this in mind let us consider Locke’s definition of knowledge; the perception of the connexion and agreement, or disagreement and repugnancy, of … ideas. If knowledge is as such how does one get to these extrinsic factors of ideas? To know what something represents one has to know God’s intention or the object that caused it. In another one cannot have knowledge on such a reading as he does not have access to the way something represents.

One objection to the veil of ideas problem produced by Locke’s framework is that commentators have taken the traditional explanation of ideas. As explained before ideas are proposed to be mental objects which create a barrier to the external world. Yolton has argued that this is an ontological stance of what an idea is and thus the cause of this skeptical nature of Locke’s ideas. He proposes that ideas are not to be read as objects but rather as acts of cognition. Yolton equates ideas with perception and as the latter is an act, ideas similarly are acts. Considering all of this, Yolton denies any barrier or veil for ideas. Although the textual evidence for an active reading of ideas is not more probable than an object reading this ontological distinction of ideas does not affect the epistemological problem. Yolton is advocating for a direct realism theory of perception where sensitive knowledge is the act of perceiving an agreement between the idea and the thing itself, not another idea. Put another way to have an idea of an object and being aware of that object are the same thing. However, this awareness posited by such commentators does not free Locke from the problem but has the same pitfalls as an object reading. Consider the following

T’is evident, that the Mind knows not Things immediately, but only by the intervention of the Ideas it has of them. Our Knowledge, therefore, is really only so far as there is a conformity between our Ideas and the reality of Things. But what shall be here the Criterion? How shall the Mind, when it perceives nothing but its own Ideas, know that they agree with the Things themselves? (IV.iv.3)

It is apparent that this awareness of the external object is the awareness of a sensory idea not a direct relationship to the object itself. As stated before sensory experience for Locke gives some knowledge of an external world where an external object has some relationship with the sensory idea but that it is as far as it goes. It does not give direct awareness to the causes themselves but rather that the idea is an effect of some cause. The veil is not between ideas and causes but between ideas and their specific causes. It is this mediating nature of ideas that creates the barrier between man and the world.

By way of conclusion, I wish to give some historical comments in explaining the aforementioned Lockean conundrum. Those before Descartes did not distinguish between events of inner space and outer space. Descartes however carves out an inner space where everything was to pass through. This allowed Locke to conceive of an idea unlike those before him. With this idea, Locke proposes man is a tabula rasa impressed only by the world. The way such an impression takes place was for Locke, knowledge, and here is where his confusion arose. Philosophers like Locke thought of knowledge as the relationship between persons and objects rather than knowledge as the relationship between persons and propositions. Although Aristotle made the same mistake it seemed he had an alternative. The impression for him where identical to the object itself whereas Locke to these impressions as representations. He could not have something to consider these representations as to postulate such a faculty would have intruded a ghost into the quasi-machine whose operation he hoped to describe This tension between the inner and outer realm, accompanied by scholastic remnants and newfound scientific aspirations, resulted to, as we have seen, Locke arriving at inconsistencies in both realms.

Essay on John Locke Influence on American Revolution

John Locke was an enlightened thinker from England born in Wrington, Somerset 1632 to family of Puritans (a father who even fought on the side of the parliamentarians during the English Civil War). Labeled as a contract theorist which the study of how conflicting interests build formal and informal ways of working constructively, Locke was known as the “father of liberalism” through his writing of the Second Treatise of Government which although written around 1680 was only published in 1689. The objective of the book was not only to defend the glorious revolution but also its aftermath and consequent Bill of Rights. His writings also pertain to political authority and what role governments should have, he does this by outlaying what he calls the “state of nature” and his opposition to the thought process of the divine right to rule.

(Mondal, P., 2021. Locke’s Perspective of State of Nature. Yourarticlelibrary.) John Locke’s idea about the state nature is the thought that the people are more or less self-governed and that this will be the utopian side of freedom in that people will be able to decide their acts as they see fit whether or not that pertains to possessions or other people around them and it will all be governed by the laws of nature and thus natural rights will be achieved. By putting this practise into place Locke prophesies that certain advancements can be achieved such as a freedom that is not dependent upon others and a moral equality in the universal understanding of the natural law. Locke says that natural law will dictate that natural rights will follow, those being that everyone has a right to life, property, and self-preservation, this being a universal and inherent right given to people by the very fact of them being human beings. He surmises that people will follow these laws of nature by their reasoning that it is the right thing to do. This can be seen in the following quote by John Locke “The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind … that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions” However Locke does circumvent this idea of almost anarchist state by saying how possessions should only be accumulated to the point of having one’s share and that anything after this point spoils, although contradictory he says the accumulation of wealth(money) is indefinite.

(Dhawan, 2021) Famous philosopher Jeremy Bentham when remarking on the concept of natural rights prevailing in the state of nature stated “is simple nonsense, rhetorical nonsense and nonsense on stilts.” Showing that Lock’s assessment and subsequent explanation of how society should be governed has its detractors. Its main opposition is to the idea that the state of nature will follow the law of nature and that the people will follow said law. It can be argued that psychologically people will innately favour themselves and their friends over the natural law. It could be seen that the state of nature can lead to war as it did many times in the past and lead to revolution as people are left behind in society and their government no longer cares about them. Also, the idea of natural rights hinges on the belief that in governmental or political organizations these rights existed in a substantial form, to begin with. The idea itself of natural rights is quite vague and can be argued ad nauseam what that encloses, with different sectors of society being able to say what they think they are entitled to. (9 Essential Criticism of The Theory of Natural Rights, 2021) Locke writes that possession or the ability to own things is a natural right as we have common ownership over the lands “given to us by god”. He states that a mixture of labor with activity gives you a right to it for example the farming of an animal would give you ownership of said animal. However again this can be critiqued as allowing exploitation and inequality of man over man to perpetrate. It could allow for a society of extreme wealth and severe poverty without the political power to try and keep it functioning will lead to unabashed exploitation.

When discussing the role of the state Locke gives it three roles, which are to give a settled way of interpreting the natural law, determining what breaks that interpretation, and deciding, then enacting punishments for these indiscretions. He elaborates on the need for majority consent when people pick their government and that consent is needed to maintain legitimacy in political institutions. Locke defines consent in two terms expressed and tacit. Expressed at least according to Locke is not necessary for consent to be given only tacitly. Tacit consent can be given by participating in what the state offers its citizens such as motorways or emergency services. However again tacit consent seems to lose a term and is generally participated in without the acknowledgment of the masses as David Hume points out in “Of the Original Contract” a peasant has no choice but to give tacit consent due to the limited options afforded to them so has no option but to take the governmental offers. It also stands to reason that for the public to give consent they also must be informed as to have any sort of political aspirations. But if this is not adhered to then the public has no obligations to power and thus is ruled mostly independently from the scrutiny needed to give real consent. (Layman, 2016)

Next to deal with is Locke’s view on revolution and when that should be executed if at all. Locke says that there is a right to revolution when the government is illegitimate. Illegitimacy comes in two forms according to Locke those being tyranny, which is described as the government violating the laws of nature, and Usurpation which is power being obtained without the majority consent of the public. Who decides whether these acts have taken place can only be the people of the nation. (Hesiod, 2021) The example Locke uses in the “Second Treatise of Government” is that of King James I whose son was usurped as the legitimate form of government after he enshrined greater power to parliament for the benefit of England and its commonwealth. Locke considered this Tyranny. However, it can be debated whether these are good enough reasons for revolution and whether this way of thinking harbors instability and naivety about the way people consider things. For example, Locke would say that people would only rebel when serious matters require it, and the majority of people are inclined in this way of thinking but many revolutions throughout history have been performed by minority actors or even been led to change under pretenses by a charismatic figure the rise of Nazi Germany being the most famous example.

According to Locke the executive right to punish is endowed upon all people through the state of nature making it one of our original liberties. (Locke and the right to punish 2021) He states that anyone who attempts to violate a person’s right to self-governance then the victim has the right to punish the violator. The argument against this is vast, firstly they are being a situation where the persecuted citizen is unable to dish out their idea of justice as they are unable physically or mentally also without the state to categorize crime and act as a mediator for the justice process then powerful groups could occur who can easily sway justice in their favor. Also, corruption could occur with people being punished for crimes that they did not commit but do not have the legal process to defend themselves. There are examples of this of people taking the law into their own hands that rarely ends well in modern society, it could even be argued that modern terrorism can be put into Locke’s category as the Jihadists of today could argue that the actions of the West has violated the middle east countries in the world in their quest for self-governance and their reaction is just their right to punish thus showing that this way of thinking about law and order is a slippery slope that doesn’t always have the desired results.

In conclusion, John Locke would say in response to political authority that there should be many limitations put upon it as he argues it is more for the individual to distinguish themselves through self-governance and it is up to the people through state of nature to decide their fates without governmental interference. This way of thinking is probably why John Locke is still such an admired writer in the United States who has adhered to his writings a lot more than Western Europe has due to their value of self-governance being such a pervasive argument within the more right-wing section of the American electorate. (John Locke’s Influence on United States Government – PHDessay.com, 2021) It may also help as he is seen as one of the inspirations behind the American War of Independence (as well as the French Revolution). However in terms of my own opinion and whether or not I agree with John Locke’s account I have to say I find it overly naïve about human psychology in the sense that Locke surmises that people will follow the laws of nature with the interest of greater good at mind, I have to say I disagree with this people from my point of view will only act in their self-interest in the vast majority of cases with no interest of the repercussions unless they know that the consequences are serious and hence therefore provided by the state. Also, I find Locke’s view of property and ownership to be outdated and unable to stand up to the bureaucratic scrutiny of today that allows for things to run smoothly and in conjunction with what society needs. Locke says that whatever is worked on with labor is yours to own however this is not nor should it be the case as it can lead to things like malpractice or even an unequal distribution of lands or means of production. So to summarise Locke holds a more libertarian view of society and political power which I find to be outdated and unable to meet the real needs of today.

John Locke Theory of Knowledge Essay

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? In order to answer this question, we must first understand John Locke and his view on epistemology in order to get a clear meaning of this philosophical puzzle.

First, what is epistemology? Epistemology is one of the four main branches of philosophy along with metaphysics, logic, and ethics. It is the philosophical study of the nature, origin, and limits of human knowledge. It is important, because it influences how philosophers frame their research in order to discover knowledge. John Locke seems to follow a vision philosophy, in which the only concepts we experience right away are thoughts. Epistemology in Locke’s perspective is a clear contrast between experience and simple possible thought or conviction. Locke places a greater emphasis on direct sensory perception than reasoning and reason in his epistemological research. Direct experience, rather than reasoning and reason, he claims, is a more credible source of understanding. Locke argues that human beings have no inborn, or innate, ideas in their mind at birth. When our mind first comes into existences, it is a blank slate, a “tabula rasa”. This is a theory we are born with no mental content and our experiences and knowledge will write all that we will ever know.

According to Locke, there are two types of experiences, outer experience or sensation and inner experience or reflection. Outer experiences are those that enter our mind through our senses such as smell or hearing. He refers to these ideas as “the operation of the mind about its other ideas.” Sight gives us ideas of colors, and hearing gives us the idea of sound. The more complicated experiences are those that are inner. These ideas derive from memory, imagination, desire, doubt, judgement, and choice. He assumes that we should observe or feel our minds doing actions, and that when we do, we get ideas of reflection. These are not to be confused with automatic instinctual behaviors we as humans have such as fear induced aggression, sleep, or eating. (“Ways of Knowing: How We Choose What We Believe,” 2020)

Locke then breaks these ideas down to primary and secondary properties these can be described as the differences in the ideas that they make in our mind. Primary properties are those that mirror the analogous qualities in the object that caused us to have those ideas. Secondary properties of objects produce ideas in our mind that do not mirror the corresponding qualities in an object that produces those ideas in our mind. Examples of this would be a blue rectangle. The shape is primary while the color is secondary. Locke says, sensation of rectangularity resembles the property in the object (it being a rectangle), that produces this sensation, but the sensation of blueness does not resemble the property in the object. (“Locke on Primary and Secondary Qualities,” n.d.). Locke then proceeds to talk about qualities, and how sensations in the mind are caused by the quality in an object. A quality is the ability of a thing to elicit an idea in the mind. A quality is a power in a thing to trigger an idea in a mind, rather than a thing itself.

The discussion of external world experience by Locke brings us face to face with many of Locke’s core philosophical themes. External world experience, according to Locke, is sensitive knowledge of actual life. That is, it is the awareness that some entity exists apart from our mind and has an effect on our mind by causing it to produce those ideas. This understanding comes from sensory experience.

Now that a foundation is built on the Locke’s philosophy on epistemology, we have a better understanding on how we would answer the one of the most debated about philosophical puzzles. A tree in the forest will always disturb air waves regardless of if anyone is there to hear it. This is called realism. This is the doctrine that matter as the object of perception has real existence and is neither reducible to universal mind or spirit nor dependent on a perceiving agent. If no one is present when the tree falls there will be no one to witness the auditory noise that is made from the fall. There are different views in the way people solve this puzzle. Locke said, “Now the two ideas that in this case are perceived to agree and do thereby produce knowledge are the idea of actual sensation (which is an action whereof I have a clear and distinct idea) and the idea of actual existence of something without me that causes that sensation”. (Connolly, n.d.). The answer to this puzzle is both yes and no. Dr. George Berkley, a philosopher, says it does make sound because God heard it. A different viewpoint is of the sensation of a falling tree is a human experience which involves a sound vibration to come in contact with an ear it makes no sound. The last way to view this puzzle is that it made a sound even though no one heard it and we know what a falling tree sounds like because we have solid evidence that a tree dropped, so we assume it made the sound we would imagine.

The confusion lies within the word “sound”. He believes that sound is a sensation in a mind. In this puzzle we use this word to describe both airwaves and to describe an audible sensation. These are two different entities because a tree a falling will always make a sound this is one way of using the word and the other doesn’t cause any type of sound because there are no ears to witness this sound.

Therefore, John Locke would say this puzzle could be solved by using secondary qualities that derive from primary qualities. If someone has already heard a tree falling, they remember the sound it made, so they will automatically assume it made a sound regardless of them not being physically present. Since our senses agree that a falling tree produces a sound when we are present, our senses, in combination with our rationality, the fourth type of simple concept he mentions, can confidently assume that a tree falling in a forest makes a sound in all cases.

Essay on What Did John Locke Do for the Enlightenment

Europe had once been covered by dark clouds of bloodshed, hostility, and conflict but many Enlightened thinkers and leaders struggled through many troubles for the cause of human life; upon the enlightenment, multiple philosophers and leaders emerged

to create a new era where human life was treasured, new ideas were heard, and ways of life were improved upon for all. Human life in all aspects would have not been improved upon without the struggle Enlightenment figures such as John Locke had encountered and brought light upon. Enlightened figures had faced many hardships, conflicts, and disagreements which had led to new and revolutionary ideas. Many notions and issues were challenged and sought to be fixed about life, the role of government, rights, and religion. Lastly, ideals about government, authority, legitimacy, progress, tolerance, property, and life and liberty were adopted and incorporated throughout the world.

As the world had been going through a time of major transformations, and reformations, many still had not felt free in their ways of life as the fear of being prosecuted by the sovereign and church’s power had rained. The motivations for change came primarily from an Englishman named John Locke; John Locke aided in the spread of scientific and rational thought which became the chief values of the society during the period. Locke’s spread of scientific and rational thought can be seen in one of his most well-known works the Two Treatises Of Government; Locke produced the Two Treatises Of Government to reject the divine right of kings, as well as to criticize the church’s role in power. John Locke stated, “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his consent.” This meaning people did not surrender all their rights to one single individual, but they surrendered only the right to preserve/maintain and enforce the ability to live freely. Not only did Locke spark hope for people during the English revolution but he also challenged old notions that had been established by the previous sovereign King James II; furthermore also introduced a broader thinking on governmental rule.

Through the flourishment of the enlightenment, scholars were congregating all across the world in every village, town, city, and country; with a message to spread, this message had been how to fix the problems that had plagued life. Because John Locke had been a member of the Shaftesbury household he was vastly known and spread his messages to countless numbers of people including many enlightened thinkers, Locke challenged political ideas and ways of life that have been standing for centuries not only had he challenged the whole political system but also those who tried to uphold these practices; Locke fought for the legal rights, natural rights, and natural law for everyone, Locke’s conception of natural rights is captured in his statement that individuals have a right to protect their “life, health, liberty, and possessions.” This can be seen in Locke’s arguments against innate principles and anti-authoritarianism ideals as Locke also stated: “Since governments exist by the consent of the people to protect the rights of the people and promote the public good, governments that fail to do so can be resisted and replaced with new governments.” Thus Locke believed that to have a peaceful society, everyone must be treated with equality which can only occur if there is a fair government system in place, and if people have to fight to have their natural rights granted, something has to be done about it. Through the extensive work that John Locke had put into fighting for the political rights of people many approaches and procedures started to change throughout the world.

As the world progressed further and further Locke’s messages and ideas spread vastly and led to many changes throughout the world.