Week 5 – Locke on Political Obligation
Self Ownership and Problems
How do we go from the fact that we own ourselves to the rights of private
property?
If we own ourselves how is that consistent with us having duties to the
government? How do we justify surrendering ourselves to the government if we
own ourselves? This second question is the topic of todays lecture
Locke’s Liberal Ambitions:
Even though we own ourselves we still have political duties – this problem can be
solved, Locke’s ambitions
Locke’s view differs from hobbes, he aims that there can be political authority
which is limited rather than absolute.
There are limits what the states can do, what sets those limits are individual rights
– locke
States can not treat individuals in some way, it will be unjust otherwise.
This view singles locke out as making a major contribution to liberalism.
The laws of nature:
How is Locke different from Hobbes? First is law of nature
For Hobbes laws of natures are guidelines we should follow for peace,
instruments of rationality to get us what we want in the end. If there are duties
not to kill, then those are explained by not murdering is good for the end,
otherwise you will be excluded from future cooperation.
Contrast, Locke has different conception. For him they are moral rules how we
may or may not act. Do not murder is justified by murder is immoral. Locke
conceives LON religiously such as god given LON that tell us how to act.
For Locke laws of nature is not a right to self-preservation but duty of self-
preservation.
Just as we have duties to live our own lives, we should help others do that so we
should not harm others, and aid nature of mankind.
Laws of nature have different characters in both.
State of nature:
2nd distinction
Locke believes individuals will recognize the laws of nature and try to uphold
them
We will make good effort to do this and therefore the state of nature would be
harmonious and peaceful compared to Hobbes war of all against all
Therefore, Locke has a more optimistic view.
However, Locke’s view is not that state of nature would be morally perfect there
will still be serious complications and threat of violence will still be there
somewhat.
So the difference is just the difference in degrees of violence in both. For Locke it
is a possibility not inevitable like Hobbes.
, For Locke:
In the state of nature we will recognize it and when we see someone being
immoral we can each punish that individual and call to attention their wrongdoing
Each of us is the executioner of the laws of nature
Locke however thinks this gives rise to problems.
We would fight continually over-power and resources. Deference to authority is
therefore an act of self-preservation: we put our faith in strong leaders, and civic
institutions such as the law, to save us from ourselves.
Individuals can quickly tale offence and start punishing people – problem
Three inconveniences/problems
1. Problem of definition: the content of the law of nature is not always clear. Some
such as don’t murder are clear but others such as aiding mankind are quite vague
and people might disagree when this applies. How do we know if we have done
this?
2. Problem of judgement: whether and to what extent are the laws of nature being
violated, unclear exactly WHO has violated
3. Problem of enforcement: even if we know the above two, we might punish people
unfairly. Less inclined to punish friends and more to enemies.
The functions of Government:
The function of government is to remedy these three problems that exist in the
State of Nature, overcome the inconveniences
1. The legislature defines the law in detail and overcomes the problem of definition,
make it precise
2. The judiciary interprets the law and judges the seriousness of violations of the law,
thus overcoming the problem of judgment. If individuals acts wrongly we hold
them to account through proper institutions such as a jury putting the person on
trial with sufficient evidence
3. The executive enforces the law, thus overcoming the problem of enforcement.
Such as a police force to carry out punishment undiscriminatory and fairly.
If governments fails in these aspects, then the governments are failing in their obligations.
That’s the way in which the 3 problems help us understand proper government
Legitimate Political Authority:
As we have seen, according to Locke, the justification for political authority lies in
the fact that it enables individuals to comply with the Laws of Nature better than if
they were to uphold them individually.
If there was no government, there would be chaos, authority is needed to ensure
that the laws of nature are being complied to.
This is the Consequentialist Justification: Political authority is justifiable only if
its consequences (in terms of conforming with the Laws of Nature) are better than
in the State of Nature.
The Delegation of Political Authority:
On this view, the power to interpret and enforce the Laws of Nature is entrusted to
government, who enjoy delegated authority. Ultimately, therefore, political power
remains with the people: it is entrusted to tgovernment but it cannot be alienated.
Self Ownership and Problems
How do we go from the fact that we own ourselves to the rights of private
property?
If we own ourselves how is that consistent with us having duties to the
government? How do we justify surrendering ourselves to the government if we
own ourselves? This second question is the topic of todays lecture
Locke’s Liberal Ambitions:
Even though we own ourselves we still have political duties – this problem can be
solved, Locke’s ambitions
Locke’s view differs from hobbes, he aims that there can be political authority
which is limited rather than absolute.
There are limits what the states can do, what sets those limits are individual rights
– locke
States can not treat individuals in some way, it will be unjust otherwise.
This view singles locke out as making a major contribution to liberalism.
The laws of nature:
How is Locke different from Hobbes? First is law of nature
For Hobbes laws of natures are guidelines we should follow for peace,
instruments of rationality to get us what we want in the end. If there are duties
not to kill, then those are explained by not murdering is good for the end,
otherwise you will be excluded from future cooperation.
Contrast, Locke has different conception. For him they are moral rules how we
may or may not act. Do not murder is justified by murder is immoral. Locke
conceives LON religiously such as god given LON that tell us how to act.
For Locke laws of nature is not a right to self-preservation but duty of self-
preservation.
Just as we have duties to live our own lives, we should help others do that so we
should not harm others, and aid nature of mankind.
Laws of nature have different characters in both.
State of nature:
2nd distinction
Locke believes individuals will recognize the laws of nature and try to uphold
them
We will make good effort to do this and therefore the state of nature would be
harmonious and peaceful compared to Hobbes war of all against all
Therefore, Locke has a more optimistic view.
However, Locke’s view is not that state of nature would be morally perfect there
will still be serious complications and threat of violence will still be there
somewhat.
So the difference is just the difference in degrees of violence in both. For Locke it
is a possibility not inevitable like Hobbes.
, For Locke:
In the state of nature we will recognize it and when we see someone being
immoral we can each punish that individual and call to attention their wrongdoing
Each of us is the executioner of the laws of nature
Locke however thinks this gives rise to problems.
We would fight continually over-power and resources. Deference to authority is
therefore an act of self-preservation: we put our faith in strong leaders, and civic
institutions such as the law, to save us from ourselves.
Individuals can quickly tale offence and start punishing people – problem
Three inconveniences/problems
1. Problem of definition: the content of the law of nature is not always clear. Some
such as don’t murder are clear but others such as aiding mankind are quite vague
and people might disagree when this applies. How do we know if we have done
this?
2. Problem of judgement: whether and to what extent are the laws of nature being
violated, unclear exactly WHO has violated
3. Problem of enforcement: even if we know the above two, we might punish people
unfairly. Less inclined to punish friends and more to enemies.
The functions of Government:
The function of government is to remedy these three problems that exist in the
State of Nature, overcome the inconveniences
1. The legislature defines the law in detail and overcomes the problem of definition,
make it precise
2. The judiciary interprets the law and judges the seriousness of violations of the law,
thus overcoming the problem of judgment. If individuals acts wrongly we hold
them to account through proper institutions such as a jury putting the person on
trial with sufficient evidence
3. The executive enforces the law, thus overcoming the problem of enforcement.
Such as a police force to carry out punishment undiscriminatory and fairly.
If governments fails in these aspects, then the governments are failing in their obligations.
That’s the way in which the 3 problems help us understand proper government
Legitimate Political Authority:
As we have seen, according to Locke, the justification for political authority lies in
the fact that it enables individuals to comply with the Laws of Nature better than if
they were to uphold them individually.
If there was no government, there would be chaos, authority is needed to ensure
that the laws of nature are being complied to.
This is the Consequentialist Justification: Political authority is justifiable only if
its consequences (in terms of conforming with the Laws of Nature) are better than
in the State of Nature.
The Delegation of Political Authority:
On this view, the power to interpret and enforce the Laws of Nature is entrusted to
government, who enjoy delegated authority. Ultimately, therefore, political power
remains with the people: it is entrusted to tgovernment but it cannot be alienated.
