A society must be judged upon its ability to grow and maintain health for its citizens, which is chiefly achieved through an equitable relationship between money and resources. As such, the growth and health of a society is dependent upon its ability to develop in a constantly changing world while simultaneously providing a consistent and stable moral code, thereby providing its citizens with security and equality. Conversely, should a society become stagnant and fail to recognize the necessity to evolve and progress in the world for any reason, its citizens will become neglected and begin to covet the greater offerings of the world around them. In accordance with this reasoning, I contend that the “best” society must be considered to be the …show more content…
It is through this that he provides the best ethical analysis of the relationship between resources and money. He argues that all resources were given in common to the people by God except for one’s own body, which constitutes the only naturally given possession. Consequently, “Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labor with it, and joined to it something that is his own and thereby make it his property.” (Locke, 88) To illustrate his idea, he then employs a simple example of an apple. He contends that when a person picks an apple from a tree they have then mixed their labor into the apple, and “the labor put a distinction between them and common.” (88, Locke) He continues on to place a limit on the acquisition of goods as deemed appropriate by natural law. He argues that “the same law of Nature that does by this means give us property, does also bound that property too.” (89, Locke) As such, an individual is limited to the amount that he can “make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils.” (Locke, 90) To collect anything further is beyond a human’s natural given portion and it justly the property of the commons or others. Finally, he concludes that money can be problematic, reflected in statement such as “men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth” (Locke, 99). …show more content…
Locke’s interpretation of one’s own body as the root of all private goods, which consequently leads to private property and the ability to build upon one’s own wealth, serves a motivator for societal improvement. For example, if a person is able to pick as many apples as they can reasonably make use of without the fear of the government confiscating them in the name of public good, they will be more motivated to develop a more efficient system that allows for greater production. Such a system could then be used by other society members and, therefore, would serve to improve societal wellbeing as a whole. While some may argue that Locke’s proposed system allows for societal instability because of one’s ability to own private property, which could possibly lead to socioeconomic inequality, Locke’s argument rests on the notion that people are bound to collect “as much as anyone can make use of to any advantage of life before it spoils.” (Locke, 90) Therefore, in such a system, inequality and hoarding of resources would not be possible. When examining this principle with the existence of money, Locke contends that proper government regulation can serve to determine a just way for goods to be treated and not allow for the hoarding of assets. Locke recognizes
...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.
John Locke was one of the Enlightenment Philosophers who contributed into the world today. Locke was trying to prove that everyone and everything is free but there are natural consequence to their decisions. “...(W)e must consider, what state all men are naturally in,and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose [manage] of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature…”John Locke “Of the State of Nature”. In the quote Locke states that men are naturally free and they can manage their belongings within the laws of nature.
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...
In Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, he takes the view that human nature is a property acquiring creature and claims that in the state of nature humankind has property in his person and nobody has any right to but himself. Furthermore, Locke states that all property derives from our labour, the work that we put in to property and in return we gain title to that property. As a result, labour bestows value and essentially labour is the source of all values. Also Locke asserts that once title is obtained man can acquire unlimited property. In particular, Locke claims that the state of nature is given to all mankind in common and that property only becomes private property when we add our labour to it. In this
At the core of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to critique it, and similarly both theorists begin with conceptions of a state of nature: a human existence predating civil society in which the individual does not find institutions or laws to guide or control one’s behaviour. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed capacities for reason. Further, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke intends as granted by God. They go about their business rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but they soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any codified means to ensure their security...
John Locke is best seen as the “Father of Classical Liberalism” making him one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers during the 17th-century, considered as the era of modern philosophy. Locke puts his trust in human reasoning because he believes that all humans are born equal, stating that no one has power above another person and that they have the right to commit the actions that each one pleases to do so. In the Second Treatise of Government Locke says, “we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 8). Locke explains how men are reasonable when they make decisions, leaving it entirely up to the person to do as ...
In Chapter V of his Second Treatise, John Locke defines the legitimate appropriation of property as a process dependent on the use of personal labor by individuals. He explains that God has given the World to all of mankind so that they might use its resources to their advantages. Each person is born with a “Property” in his or her own “Person” and thus, when an individual removes something from the State that was provided by Nature and mixes it with his Labor, it subsequently becomes his property. Locke emphasizes the gravity of labor in putting “the difference of value on every thing,” (V: 40, 3-4). However, the acquisition of property is severely limited past a certain point in the State of Nature. Locke ascertains that individuals can only rightfully take what they can use before it spoils, and that they can only take as much as will leave enough for others. When money has been introduced into a society, individuals are able to store large amounts of their gains in wealth and property, and as a result, some individuals inevitably acquire more in terms of value than others. As these select individuals gain more, they consequently reduce the ability of others to appropriate and gain as much as they want of the Earth. While the use of money ultimately increases the inequality of property in society by exaggerating the “different degrees of industry” that have already created disparity (48), Locke asserts that this inequality is justified because all men have knowingly agreed to its use in giving money a value. T...
John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau, following their predecessor Thomas Hobbes, both attempt to explain the development and dissolution of society and government. They begin, as Hobbes did, by defining the “state of nature”—a time before man found rational thought. In the Second Treatise[1] and the Discourse on Inequality[2], Locke and Rousseau, respectively, put forward very interesting and different accounts of the state of nature and the evolution of man, but the most astonishing difference between the two is their conceptions of property. Both correctly recognize the origin of property to be grounded in man’s natural desire to improve his life, but they differ in their description of the result of such a desire. Locke sees the need and purpose of society to protect property as something sacred to mankind, while Rousseau sees property as the cause of the corruption and eventual downfall of society. Although Rousseau raises interesting and applicable observations, Locke’s argument triumphs because he successfully shows the positive and essential effect of property on man.
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...
Based on the "Right Theory" of John Locke, the 17th century British philosopher, He argued that "laws of nature mandate that we should not harm anyone's life, health , liberty or possessions." Food is considered as a possession by other person so if you steal, you can be a violator to "the laws of nature." Therefore, based on Locke's theory stealing can viewed as immoral or unethical. In addition, he said that every person has "the rights and duties" to each other. Meaning, you have the right to acquire possessions including the your basic needs such as food. And other people, on other hand have also a moral duty not to rob you.
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.
When analyzing the approach or intentions of the theorists, big dilemmas and questions arise. Such is the case with John Locke and Immanuel Kant, both falling under the concepts of freedom. Locke, having a perspective similar to that of a libertarian’s, argues for rights of possession and limited government intervention, but the difference to his philosophy is that he “does not assert an unlimited right of self-possession” (Sandel 104). In other words, we may not do with our bodies as we please. Locke also argues that an unowned thing becomes your property through the fruit of your labor. In a literal sense, Locke’s theory calls for respect for humanity, but perhaps his biggest problem is the way he proposes his philosophy. Locke believes in the sacredness of human life, and with his ideas he invokes God (Sandel 104). This is where the biggest question arises when reflecting on his theory. Many people are nonbelievers and others have variant beliefs. Suggesting a theory with religious background may not necessarily appeal to the public, especially in a pluralistic society. In addition, Locke’s claim of ownership following labor is not necessarily correct. Consider picking up flowers in an open field. The flowers, or what you claim ownership of, were the fruit of your labor (harvesting), but that does not necessarily mean that they are yours. The very vast and flexible definition of justice and ethics described by Locke leaves open many loop holes. Kant disagrees with Locke, utilitarians, and libertarians. He argues for a philosophy founded on humans being “rational beings worthy of dignity and respect” (Sandel 104). Kant disagrees with ideas of the good-life as well, and his philosophy is founded on three principal contrasts: morality, freedom, and reason. In terms of freedom, one is only free when
Men have a right to create and enjoy their property. Property belongs to own men and own men have a natural right to property and private ownership. According to Macpherson's interpretation, Locke has three restrictions on the accumulation of property.
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.