John Locke Natural Rights Analysis

1343 Words3 Pages

Mid-term According to John Locke everyone has natural rights. John Locke came up with natural rights, by thinking about what they could be for a long and vigorous time. Locke said that natural rights are “life, health, liberty, and possessions” (9). Life is something that no one can take away from anyone. Locke said, “no ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possession” (9). Life is not an absolute right. An example of this is if there was a train full of ten thousand people about to hit a rock, and you are by the switch that could save the ten thousand people, but if you use the switch you are killing a twelve-year-old girl on the other track. Liberty is doing what ever someone wants to do, and they can’t be punished for …show more content…

One of those people may say that everybody is deserving of an equal amount of money. However, from Locke’s perspective, this is wrong. Locke would argue that inheritance of money and social class is an overpowering classification and this cannot be reversed. Another opinion which may clash with Locke’s would be the opinion would be that there is no necessity for classes and everybody should live equally. While this may be true to some extent, this is not possible. People should still have the right to attempt to acquire land and money, and not everybody equally participates in society, making it impossible for everybody to live equally. The people that argue for income equality would see that the number of homeless people would go down drastically, because the people with no home would start to get money, because there would have to be a redistribution of the wealth making everyone equal in economic aspect. Jeremy Waldron said that “Some libertarians fantasize about the possibility that all the land in society might be helped as private property (“Sell the streets!”) (300). If income equality existed, it would be like communism in a way that everyone gets the same amount of pay in that field and no one goes broke in this …show more content…

This means everyone has the right to life but the right to life is not absolute right because of my example earlier in the introduction. Liberty is what you want to do when you want to do it on your own property as long as it does not harm any else’s life. Property is what you own and the way you that you own something is by “mixing labor” with it. Money was made some man can buy things, it also does not spoil which is good according to Locke. Money also has value as long as man agrees that it has value. I agree that income inequality is justifiable for reasons John Locke has said, and that without income inequality the economy would not be the way that it is now, and no one would be able to make more money than an other

Open Document