More handpicked essays just for you.
Social contract theory for conclusion
John Locke's second treatise unequal wealth and equal freedom
Social Contract Theory Reflection
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the beginning of the Second Treatise of Government, John Locke showed his protest against Filmer's theory about the omnipotent power of government over human beings. He assured that political power must derive from the divine state of human beings. That is the State of Nature which includes the state of perfect freedom and the state of perfect equality. In other words, he argued that all men are by nature created equal; however, John Locke didn't reject the reality that inequalities of wealth are natural and inevitable. How is he able to reconcile these two ideas?
According to John Locke, men were "promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties; they should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection." (Second Treatise of Government, p8). The basic principle teaching is that God has given the earth to humankind in common, to the posterity of men so that they will have enough to subsist and flourish. Everything in its natural state is provided to commonwealth for "the support and comfort of their being." (John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, p 18). So no one originally can have the right to posses that public property. However, history has proven that every man still has the right to own, to enrich and protect his property; how can that "private dominion" come into being?
Locke clarified the problem by pointing out his notions that mostly derived from the natural state of human beings. Each man was originally born and predestined to have his own body, hands, head and so forth which can help him to create his own labor. When he knew how to use his personal mind and labor to appropriate bountiful subjects around him, taking them "out of the hands of...
... middle of paper ...
...with the person that refused to use his labor. The appearance of money played an important role in the mankind's evolution. Money, in some ways, inspired men to work harder and harder to claim and enlarge his wealth then one's labor would incite others contribution to the nonstop progression and development of human beings. That one's wealth is estimated upon the combination of their mind and labor, diligence and creativeness, bravery and desires .... has become the formula for our success in this competitive world. Definitely, the inequalities of wealth are natural and inevitable.
Basically, these two ideas, the idea of naturally created equality and the idea of inevitable inequalities of wealth turned out to be very logical and harmonious. The inequalities of wealth are finally the result from the natural law and state in which men were first born in.
In Second Treatise of Government John Locke characterizes the state of nature as one’s ability to live freely and abide solely to the laws of nature. Therefore, there is no such thing as private property, manmade laws, or a monarch. Locke continues to say that property is a communal commodity; where all humans have the right to own and work considering they consume in moderation without being wasteful. Civil and Political Societies are non-existent until one consents to the notion that they will adhere to the laws made by man, abide by the rules within the community, allow the ability to appoint men of power, and interact in the commerce circle for the sake of the populace. Locke goes further to state that this could be null in void if the governing body over extends their power for the gain of absolute rule. Here, Locke opens the conversation to one’s natural right to rebel against the governing body. I personally and whole heartily agree with Locke’s principles, his notion that all human beings have the natural right to freedoms and the authority to question their government on the basis that there civil liberties are being jeopardized.
This essay discussed John Locke’s view about the Will’s being Free and how he concluded that the Will was not free. This is an outcome that he discovered while writing On Power on An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. I have offered reasons for why this is an argument that seems to contradict itself, which makes it inconsistent and unstable.
John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690. In his writing Locke argued that individuals had the natural rights of life, liberty and property that the state could never be taken away because these rights were “inalienable.” The natural rights of individuals limited the power of the king. The king did not hold absolute power, but acted only to enforce and protect the natural rights of the people.
It is stated by John Locke that in the state of nature no man may take more then he can consume. “…make use of any advantage of life before it spoils…whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to spoil or destroy. (Locke 14)” Locke then goes on to say, “God gave the world to man … for their benefit and the greatest conveniences of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational- and labor was to be his title… (Lock 15)”
Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and inalienable equality in the state of nature. “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another. ”2 Locke suggests that a civil government has an obligation to treat its citizens equally because humans are equal in the state of nature, and it would be both morally wrong and difficult to find willing subjects if they are denied equality under the government’s rules. authority.
In Locke’s state of nature, there was never a need to assume that one must equally divide possessions. Locke’s notion of of the right to property was crucial because it was held on the same accord as rights such as life and liberty respectively. By doing so, property becomes subjected to the whims of political processes just as any similar right would require. This means that Locke was able to justify inequalities in property through the need of political regulation for property. There was also a drastic imbalance in Locke’s civil society due to the two classes that unlimited accumulation of property created. Locke suggested that everyone is a member of society and yet only those who owned property could fully participate in society. Those who did not own property were unable to fully participate, because it could give them the opportunity to use their newfound legitimate power to equalize property ownership, going against Locke’s key belief of unlimited accumulation. In Locke’s views, due to the overwhelming abundance of property, there was never a need for a method to ensure impartiality. The inequality stems from Locke’s inability to realize the discrepancy would become more and more apparent as men used money to expand their possessions. This structure established two different types of class within society, the upper echelon citizens who share in the sovereign power and the second class citizens
Locke believes that state of nature is pre-political but at the same time it is not pre-moral. He believes that everyone i...
Locke’s view of the pre-political state begins with his statement that “man is ‘naturally in,’ the state of ‘perfect freedom’ and equality,” (Christman 42). Locke believes that man naturally has the capacity for Reason which in turn allows man direct access to moral laws. Reason provides man with his own individual rights and obligations and moral rights and duties. Furthermore, Locke writes that “‘The State of Nature has a Law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: And Reason, which is that Law, teaches all Mankind, who will consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his Life, Health, Liberty, or Possession,’” (43). Moreover, man needs an authority to protect and preserve these moral rights which can only executed when, as Locke states, when the “ ‘power and jurisdiction is [are] reciprocal,’” (42). Therefore a social contract is created when human beings unite and the majority of a people agree upon a particular state which protects mans natural freedom and equality.
In this state of nature, according to Locke, men were born free and equal: free to do what they wished without being required to seek permission from any other man, and equal in the sense of there being no natural political authority of one man over another. He quickly points out, however, that "although it is a state of liberty, it is not a state of license," because it is ruled over by the law of nature which everyone is obliged to obey. While Locke is not very specific about the content of the law of nature, he is clear on a few specifics. First, that "reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it" and second, that it teaches primarily that "being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life liberty or possessions." Hence, right from the beginning, Locke places the right to possessions on the same level as the right to life, health, and liberty.
Locke believes that everyone is born as a blank slate. According to Locke there is no innate human nature but human nature is something we create. And because we are born as an equal blank slate all men have the opportunity to create human nature therefore Locke believed all men are created equal. Unlike Bentham Locke believed that government needed to take a step back and allow for each individual to have the right to three things: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Governments role should not be in dictating people what to do but to allow individuals to their three
John Locke is a seventeenth century philosopher who believed that government should be based around the people rather than the power of one person. Equality and property were two factors that Locke considered to be the key to a great society. Locke begins his writings with a discussion on individual property and how each man body is his own property. This leads Locke into the argument that man can obtain property only by using his own labor. an example Locke gives is the picking of an apple. The apple is the property of the man who used his labor to pick it. He goes on to say “A person may only acquire as many things in this way as he or she can reasonably use to their advantage”. With the discussion of property Locke leads into the discussion of trade and monetary value stating that it is natural of man to w...
Locke theorizeds extensively on property, privatization, and the means an individual can use for increasing his property. Initially, in the state of nature, man did not own property in the form of resources or land. All fruits of the earth were for the use of all men,“and nobody has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state” (Locke 353). In this state, people could appropriate only what they could make use of. It was unfair for one person to take more than he could use because some of that natural commodity would go to waste unless another man might have made use of it for his own benefit (360). Locke felt that God gave the bounties of nature to the people of earth and they, by default, should treat these bounties rationally. This rationalistic theory discourages waste.
In order to examine how each thinker views man and the freedom he should have in a political society, it is necessary to define freedom or liberty from each philosopher’s perspective. John Locke states his belief that all men exist in "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and person as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man." (Ebenstein 373) Locke believes that man exists in a state of nature and thus exists in a state of uncontrollable liberty, which has only the law of nature, or reason, to restrict it. (Ebenstein 374) However, Locke does state that man does not have the license to destroy himself or any other creature in his possession unless a legitimate purpose requires it. Locke emphasizes the ability and opportunity to own and profit from property as necessary for being free.
Locke had undoubtedly aimed to defend ideas that are still being debated today. Rather distinctively, Locke portrays sovereignty as belonging and residing with the people. Unlike Hobbes, we see the state of nature as consisting of equality and there is an existence of natural rights that govern behaviour. Yet, the question is to why a society may need a sovereign if the state of nature was so, arguably, peaceful in the first place. Locke argues that this is because there are bound to be some people infringing others’ rights (‘inconveniences’), which will then need to be sanctioned (Laslett 1988). Also, a state and separate judicial, legislative and executive branches are required to protect private property. If the government ceases to act in the interests of the people it represents, then the people can dissolve the government and thus there is no real sovereignty of the government in Locke’s portrayal, unlike Hobbes. The core notion is that of consent; people have to come to an agreement to have a state, government and all the other powers it may then bring (Laslett 1988). Similar to Hobbes’ idea of a social contract, therefore, the people give consent to be governed. This political power is hence not like anything else (such as paternal power).
Wealth inequality is the uneven distribution of resources in a given state or population, which can also be called the wealth gap. The sum of one’s total assets excluding the liabilities equates the person’s wealth also known as the net worth. Investments, residents, cash, real estates and everything owned by an individual are their assets.In reality, the United States is among the richest countries in the world, though a few people creating a major gap between the richest, the middle class and the poor control most of its wealth. For more than a quarter of a century, only the rich American families have shown an increase to their net worth.Thisis a worrying fact for the less fortunate in the country and calls for assessment (Baranoff, 2015).