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
...s his argument by emphasizing the absolute reason on why property is solely for the use to produce goods and provide services by farming one’s land or building infrastructures; nevertheless the overuse of one’s land exhibits what Locke calls waste, whereas the consumption of goods for the use of trade can result in bartering and wealth. The introduction of wealth creates the motivation for people feel compelled to protect their wealth which leads us back to the concept of entering into a civil or political society for security. Locke believes that civil and political society can ensure the stability, security, and social structure of any given society; but he points out that if the government becomes a tyranny or corrupt only than shall the populace exercise their right to question the authority and overthrow if needed.
...limits are exceeded through the establishment of the currency , which is not perishable. Locke is also convinced that an economy based on private property and unlimited accumulation of wealth generate economic development overall infinitely superior to the pre-bourgeois models : a small piece of land cultivated privately , he notes , makes it a hundred times more than they would if left in the common property.
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 states that the correct form of civil government should be committed to the common good of the people, and defend its citizens’ rights to life, health, liberty, and personal possessions. He expects that a civil government’s legislative branch will create laws which benefit the wellbeing of its citizens, and that the executive branch will enforce laws under a social contract with the citizenry. “The first and fundamental positive law of all common-wealths is the establishing of the legislative power; as the first and fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative itself, is the preservation of the society and (as far as will consist with the public good) of every person in it.”1 Locke believes that humans inherently possess complete and i...
For individual property to exist, there must be a means for individuals to appropriate the things around them. Locke starts out with the idea of the property of person; each person owns his or her own body, and all the labor that they perform with the body. When an individual adds their own labor, their own property, to a foreign object or good, that object becomes their own because they have added their labor. This appropriation of goods does not demand the consent of humankind in general, each person has license to appropriate things in this way by individual initiative.
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 order to examine either philosopher’s views on property and its origins, it is necessary to go back to the beginning of human development, as it were, and discuss their different conceptions of the state of nature. As opposed to Hobbes whose vision of the state of nature was a state of war, Locke’s state of nature is a time of peace and stability. “We must consider what State all Men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom…A State also of Equality, wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another.” (Locke, Second Tre...
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...
Consequently, since all human beings have certain moral rights to health, liberty, and possessions; they also have the right to enforce the protection of those rights by way of punishing violators. And it is in this maintaining of ones own rights that it is necessary for man to initially come together and form a social contract. By forming a social contract they are agreeing to sustain from living purely in a state of nature. According to Locke, living in such a state of nature is ‘inconvienent’, for there is no common ground by which to appropriately judge an individual who infringes upon another person natural rights (Christman 43). Therefore, one can not ‘effectively enjoy’ their own rights until they join under a ‘common political authority’ (44).
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.
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.
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
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.
Hobbes and Locke’s divergent perspectives concerning the social contract clarified the manner in which government should function for the people. Their theories assisted the American Founders in instituting a government that took into account both the iniquitous and virtuous aspects of human nature. Accordingly, it is the egocentric character of man in which government attempts to protect against that is the foremost reason for the existence of government. As stated by James Madison, “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be