Discuss, compare and contrast the ways in which Locke and Hume defend inequalities of distribution. Does either offer a more convincing defence? Why?
This essay seeks to examine the inequalities of distribution of resources and the defences of these inequalities provided by John Locke, in Of Property , and David Hume in Of Justice . Both writings set out the scene in which their theories would evolve. Locke starts with the idea that everything is held in common, and ownership is acquired through ones labour. Hume starts off with an illustration of a society where everybody has more than enough, and poses the question if we had more than enough what is the point of justice?
Locke is of the view that everything is held in common to begin with, and then when we add our labour to something we acquire ownership of that thing. For example, trees are held in common, however, if we build a chair out of the tree, we own the chair because we have put our labour into it. We have property in ourselves; therefore, what we create belongs to us. However, if we take something, we must leave enough and as good for others. In a state where everything is held in common, and where people create ownership by adding their labour inequalities can arise. They arise for a number of reasons, possibly because a person has been more productive and industrious than others have, or because they are more talented at doing useful things with the land and all that nature has given to us.
Hume opens with the following “… justice is useful to society, and consequently that part of its merits, at least, must arise from that consideration, it would be a superfluous undertaking to prove. That public utility is the sole origin of justice, and that reflections o...
... middle of paper ...
... I think not. However, Māori are generally overrepresented in the criminal justice system, underrepresented in Education, and Higher Education, are overrepresented in the unemployment rates, Māori generally have poor health as well. What about women in New Zealand? Currently there is a case on appeal regarding equal pay in the aged care sector, women do the same work as men in the same role and get paid less.
Works Cited
Hume, David. "Of Justice." Chap. 2 In Social Justice, edited by Matthew Clayton and William Andrew. 32-46. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing 2004.
Locke, John. "Of Property." Chap. 1 In Social Justice, edited by Matthew Clayton and Andrew Williams. 21-31. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004.
Smits, Kathy. "Lecture 3: Hume: Justice and Stable Cooperation." In Lecture Notes - Politics 320 Social Justice. Auckland: University of Auckland, 2014.
Skyrms’ explorations in Evolution of the Social Contract are based on the premise that human beings are, in fact, inclined to behave justly. His writings do not aim to prove that individuals act justly all the time; however they assert that the disposition exists in societies. Many would take issue with Skyrms’ assertion. Firstly, justice has many interpretations. According to some, equal division of a resource is not always what justice requires. Skyrms fails to address situations where an individual may have worked harder than another for a resource, and invested more time in it. Perhaps one individual would obtain more utility from a given amount of a resource than another would. Libertarians would demand property rights, and argue that one individual might better utilize the resource than the other, creating more benefit for society. Skyrms also fails to give specific interpretations of justice and does not offer any thoughts on what ideas of justice, if any, are cultural universals.
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?
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...
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
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty and John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government are influential literary works while which outlining the theoretical framework of each thinkers optimal state propose two conflicting visions of the very essence of man and his freedom. Locke and Mill have completely different views when it comes to how much freedom man should have in political society because they have obtained different views about man’s potential of inheriting pure or evil behavior.
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
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.
Furthermore, Locke's passion for morality is also seen in his interpretation of the social contract. We see that Locke's ideas in freedom of life, liberty, and property have formed the basic morals of past and current governments. One of Edwards's morals that have been seen throughout American history is the infinite sovereignty of G...
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. Edited with an introduction and notes by Peter Laslett. Cambridge University Press.
For Hume, it is of major importance and consequence that obedience is taught and demonstrated for its benefits. First of all, liberty and commerce depend on obligation to promises. Secondly, submission to government is necessary for the performance of promises. Disobedience and revolution put both of these advantageous in jeopardy.
The concept of justice has been a crucial factor in determining governments and the structure of society. In this essay I will argue two thinkers, Thrasymachus and Hobbes, as represented in the writings of The Republic, by Plato and Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes divergent ideas on justice.
Within two classical works of philosophical literature, notions of justice are presented plainly. Plato’s The Republic and Sophocles’ Antigone both address elements of death, tyranny and immorality, morality, and societal roles. These topics are important elements when addressing justice, whether in the societal representation or personal representation.
2. Nielsen, Kai, ‘Radical Egalitarian Justice: Justice as Equality’ Social Theory and Practice, 1979, 209-226.
Mill, John S. Utilitarianism, in A. I. Melden, ed., Ethical Theories 2nd Edition. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1957) p.407
Simmons, A. John (1992). The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. 127.