John Locke: Political Philosophy
Introduction
While studying a political philosopher, keep two points in mind:
1. His personal life experiences and the socio-economic and political conditions of the time he was living in. Both have a deep impact on his ideas
2. The political philosophy of every philosopher generally revolves around three ideas: what is the condition of state and society in the State of Nature, how they enter into a Social Contract, and what are the role and functions of the government or ruler once they come into power
John Locke: His Life
John Locke (1632–1704), the son of a Protestant revolutionary in the English Civil War, studied medicine but took an interest in political philosophy. He had to go into exile for his ideas and involvement in a plot against the king; hence his hatred of totalitarianism.
The success of the Glorious Revolution in the UK restored John Locke’s prestige, hence his devotion to republicanism. Though devout Christian, he developed a strong aversion to a king’s right to interfere in religious matters, and always advocated religious toleration
John Locke: His Time
John Locke lived in tumultuous times in British history. He was 10 years old when the English Civil Wars started between Charles I and parliamentary forces under Oliver Cromwell. Throughout his life, he witnessed this constant struggle for power between them
John Locke was in the age of Enlightenment, during which his home of England changed radically and irrevocably, as great discoveries and intense debates were going on about almost every issue relating to human existence. He took an active part in these debates
John Locke-Core Ideas
1. Natural Law, Natural Rights, & Property
2. State of Nature
3. Social Contract
4. Consent, Political Obligation, and the Ends of Government
5. Separation of Powers and the Dissolution of Government
6. Toleration and Politics
7. Education and Politics
1. Natural Law, Natural Rights, and Property
John Locke’s entire political philosophy is based on what he calls natural law, natural rights, and natural property. Per him, God created man, and as such we are God’s property. The chief end set for us as a species & as individuals is survival.
It follows immediately that “he has no liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession. So, murder and suicide violate the divine purpose. If one takes survival as the end, then what are the means necessary to that end?
On Locke’s account, these turn out to be life, liberty, health, and property. Since the end is set by God, we have a right to the means to that end. These are natural rights that we have in a state of nature, and all people have these rights equally.
But, besides these natural rights, there is also the law of nature, which creates duties. Revealed by reason. It is the Golden Rule that commands what is best for us. It guides that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions
Locke’s account of his notion of property is of central importance to his political theory. Each person, according to Locke, has property in his person — that is, each person owns his own body. Other people may not use a person’s body for any purpose without his permission.
But one can acquire property beyond one’s own body by mixing one’s labour with other objects. For example, one acquires a right to the fruits of that work if one’s labour turns a barren field into crops or a pile of wood into a house. This is a valuable product of that labour
Each person is entitled to as much of the product of his labour as he needs to survive. But, according to Locke, in the state of nature, one is not entitled to hoard surplus produce — one must share it with those less fortunate.
2. State of Nature
Please remember, no political philosopher used the concept of the State of Nature as an actual territorial entity. Rather, it serves as an analytical device that explains why it becomes necessary to introduce civil government and its legitimate functions
Similarly, Locke’s account of political society is a contrast to this hypothetical State of Nature before the beginning of communal life.“Men living together according to reason, without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.”
In this “state of nature,” humans are entirely free. But this freedom is not a state of complete license, because it is set within the bounds of the law of nature. Each person, moreover, is required to enforce as well as to obey this law.
However, as Locke conceives it, there are problems with life in the state of nature. The law of nature, like civil laws, can be violated. There are no police, prosecutors, or judges in the state of nature, as these are all representatives of a government with full political power.
The victims, then, must enforce the law of nature in the state of nature. But when the victims are judging the seriousness of the crime, they are more likely to judge it of greater severity than might an impartial judge. As a result, there will be regular miscarriages of justice
3. Social Contract
Thus, to obviate the possibility of such a miscarriage of justice, humans enter into a contract with each other to recognize by common consent a civil government with the power to enforce the law of nature among the citizens of that state.
Consequently, a civil government comes into existence as a result of that social contract. It ensures that legitimate contracts freely entered into, must be enforced, a state of affairs much more difficult to guarantee in the state of nature and outside civil society.
4. Consent, Political Obligation, and the Ends of Government
In Locke’s political philosophy, the concept of consent plays a central role. From freedom and independence enjoyed by individuals, Locke stresses individual consent as the mechanism by which political societies are created and individuals join those societies. While there are, of course, some general obligations and rights that all people have under the law of nature, special obligations come about only when we voluntarily undertake them.
Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of society by an act of consent, express or tacit. While express consent is obvious, Locke maintains that simply by walking along the highways of a country, a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory.
Inheriting property creates an even stronger bond since the original owner permanently puts the property under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth.
However, Locke is quick to clarify that walking the streets or inheriting property in a tyrannical regime does not mean we have consented to a regime that might be tyrannical. It is thus the quality of the government, not acts of actual consent, that determine whether a government is legitimate.
5. Separation of Powers and the Dissolution of Government
According to John Locke, in the community created by the social contract, the will of the majority should prevail, subject to the law of nature. The legislative body is central, but it cannot create laws that violate the law of nature,
Because the enforcement of the natural law regarding life, liberty, and property is the rationale of the whole system. Laws must apply equitably to all citizens and not favour particular sectional interests, and there should be a division of legislative, executive, and judicial powers.
The legislature may, with the majority, impose such taxes as are required to fulfill the ends of the state. However, if the executive fails to provide conditions under which the people can enjoy their rights under natural law, then the people are entitled to remove him, by force if necessary.
Interestingly, Locke’s “federative power” gives authority to the state to act internationally according to the law of nature. Since countries are still in the state of nature, they must follow the dictates of natural law and can punish one another for violations of that law
6. Toleration in Politics
Locke is extremely critical of the state’s interference in religious affairs and vehemently maintains that the government should not use force to try to bring people to the true religion and that religious societies are voluntary organizations that have no right to use coercive power over their members or those outside their group.
Locke argues that neither the example of Jesus nor the teaching of the New Testament gives any indication that force is a proper way to bring people to salvation. He also frequently points out what he takes to be clear evidence of hypocrisy, namely that those who are so quick to persecute others for small differences in worship or doctrine are relatively unconcerned with much more obvious moral sins that pose an even greater threat to their eternal state.
Locke gives three reasons for barring governments from using force to encourage people to adopt religious beliefs
- First, he argues that the care of men’s souls has not been committed to the magistrate by either God or the consent of men. There is no command in the Bible telling magistrates to bring people to the true faith, and people could not consent to such a goal for government because it is not possible for people, at will, to believe what the magistrate tells them to believe. Their beliefs are a function of what they think is true, not what they will.
- Locke’s second argument is that since the power of the government is only force, while true religion consists of genuine inward persuasion of the mind, force is incapable of bringing people to the true religion.
- Locke’s third argument is that even if the magistrate could change people’s minds, a situation where everyone accepted the magistrate’s religion would not bring more people to the true religion. Many of the rulers of the world believe in false religions.
7. Education for Politics
Locke considers education to be extremely important for his political philosophy and stresses the importance of giving children the right sort of education to help them get the right sorts of ideas. Parents are encouraged to develop and augment the child’s love for praise and esteem. Cultivating this desire helps the child learn to hold in check other harmful desires, such as the desire for dominion, and to control impulses by not acting on them until after reflecting on them.
Locke’s educational writings suggest how children might be raised in such a way that they will be the sort of citizens who function well in a liberal society. Some think that Locke’s approach to education, which centres education within the family, gives the state too little influence over the formation of future citizens, while others think Locke gives the state considerable power to regulate education.
Comparison of Social Contract Theory by Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke
Although using the same concepts, all three philosophers—Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes, and John Locke, have different meanings about the state of nature, the reasons for entering into a social contract, and the nature of state and society in the new setting.
According to the authors, the concept of the social contract is that in the past, people lived in the State of Nature that lacked governments and laws to regulate them and their lives. Thus, in that condition, they faced hardships, miseries, and irregularities, and to overcome the problems, they entered into agreements.
However, for Rousseau and Locke, the State of Nature was not as unpleasant as for Hobbes.
State of Nature
1. Rousseau argues that in the State of Nature, people get many advantages from nature that they cannot have in the civil state. What people lose by the social contract is their natural liberty and unrestricted right to anything they want and can get.
2. For Hobbes, however, the State of Nature was as unpleasant as he called life conditions full of fear and selfishness where people live in a chaotic condition of permanent fear. According to Hobbes, life in the State of Nature was ‘solitary’, ‘poor’, ‘brutish’, and ‘short’
3. Locke, contrary to Hobbes, considers the State of Nature not that miserable, arguing that it was a state of perfect and complete liberty where everyone could conduct his life the way he saw fit. In the State of Nature, all people were equal, independent and free from the interference of others Although there was no civil authority to maintain order, people were bound to some morality. Therefore, the State of Nature according to Locke was ‘pre-political’, but not ‘pre-moral’.
Why Social Contract
1. For Rousseau, a man enters into the contract to gain more power to preserve what he has and to do that, he has to submit his will to the ‘General Will or to the sovereign’, a kind of alienation.
2. For Hobbes, people’s natural desire for security and protection made them enter into the contract, and to achieve this, they should surrender all their rights and freedoms to an authority whom they must obey.
3. Locke argues that due to the absence of law, impartial judges, and executive power, the property was not safe in the State of Nature. Thus, people decided to enter into a contract for the sake of property preservation.
Role of State
1. For Hobbes, the authority becomes the absolute head, and subjects have no rights against the authority. However, Hobbes argues that people enter into such a contract due to their ‘rationality and self-interest’ for the sake of the preservation of peace, life, and prosperity. Therefore, one would argue that Hobbes was a supporter of absolutism. Here a problem arises: what guarantees the subjects’ rights against the authority? To protect the subjects and their rights, Hobbes placed moral obligations on the authority that would be bound by natural law.
2. But Rousseau argues that this submission happens in such a way that man remains as free as before. Therefore, the states and laws are formed by the ‘sovereign’ and the state has to protect the natural rights of its citizens. But when it fails, citizens have the right and occasionally the duty to withdraw their support from, or even take action against the state. The state has to ensure the freedom and liberties of man in all circumstances. (Therefore, Rousseau put individuals before the state.
3. In Locke’s view, people do not surrender all their rights to the authority, but only the right to preserve property and enforce the law. As a result, people retain the right to life, liberty, and estate. So, government and law are created to protect the natural rights of people and they are valid until they do their jobs
