Comparing John Locke's Memory And Punishment

Because of the several failings of the theory, Locke’s ideas on self-identity are often discarded nowadays. Nevertheless, new revisions of the texts invite readers to evaluate the context in which Locke presented his ideas at the same time than his work. It is important to recognize Locke as a pioneer on the exploration of the theme (Allison 41). Even more, the philosophical atmosphere of the time also influenced his position; that is, the dominance of the philosophy of Descartes which proposed a problem to Locke (Allison 42). Furthermore, and maybe the most overlooked factor by the critics while analyzing Locke’s text, are his intentions to design a term that would explain the relationship between identity and a person’s moral responsibility.

Then, a final consideration to make would be to evaluate its practical implications in the modern world, as Locke intended. It is granted that memory and the judicial system are inseparable. Snead relate the two concepts in her essay “Memory and Punishment”, by claiming that “[it] is memory which makes moral reflection and decision making possible” (1241), and therefore the base for society’s system of retribution and reward. In modern judicial systems, criminals are still judged focusing on the act, and not on their consciousness. A response to this occurrence, using Locke’s logic, could argue that even if a person is not the same person who committed a crime, it is the same person with the qualities necessaries to do it. In judicial terms, the individual still fulfills the sufficient mens rea (guilty mind) for the actus reus (guilty act), and therefore, intervention is necessary. In such circumstances, even though the ideal scenario would offer rehabilitation, cases such as Commonwealth ex. rel. Cumming v. Price, the judgement of a criminal who suffered amnesia after been convicted, would explain that even if “rehabilitation of a criminal is, of course, important and very desirable, the protection and safety of Society is the principal objective of the criminal law and is paramount!” Under this view, it is

Earlier detractors were especially critical of its logical inconsistencies, and its ethical problems. Thomas Reid and Bishops Butler and Berkeley were three of the major critics of the theory, principally arguing against Locke’s rejection of the idea of the self as a substance. However, current revisions of the theory argue that Locke text must be analyze considering the environment in which it was designed, and the objectives that Locke sought to fulfill. He was mostly oriented to create a response to the problem presented by Descartes regarding the nature of soul, but at the same time, he aspired to compose a forensic term which could be useful on judicial grounds as well as in philosophy. Thus, Locke reasoned that continuity of consciousness was truly the base of a person’s personal identity, basically arguing that memories were the foundation of the self. His theory, though was not well received by his contemporaneous, still complies with Locke’s main purposes, as it has been demonstrated by several modern studies of his works. Moreover, even when it is empirically evaluated, it does not appear automatically faulty, or illogical. That is, though with some stretch, Locke’s theory is capable to prevail in most cases of modern justice. Hence, even with the errors attributed to the theory, and the substantial criticism it received, Locke’s memory solution to the problem of personal