The first argument for saying that liberty is not lawlessness comes from the ideas about the state of nature that Locke presents in Chapter II of his book, The Second Treatise of Civil Government. In paragraph 6 of that chapter, Locke writes:
But thought this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license... The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges everyone: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions... and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses... so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
Locke means that there is an obligation for each person to preserve not only his or her freedom but also others' freedom. All people should know or legislate this law, but the power to enforce it is up to each being in the state of nature. He writes:
And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into everyman's hands. (Chapter II, paragraph 7)
Thus, according to Locke, the state of nature has its own laws that he is trying to point out, and by organizing these laws into his Treatise, he also establishes his own laws of which the first law, reparation, states that each person is bound to preserve him or herself not in competition, but in regarding to others' preservation as well. The second law is punishment which is explained in the following paragraph:
And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment... And in this case, and upon this ground, every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the Law of Nature ( Chapter II, paragraph 8)
Obviously, therefore, human lawlessness is not liberty since in the state of nature, Locke believes that human beings are not completely freedom and still know what rights and their responsibilities are
1b) According to Locke, does a "civil society" have the right to take power over (e.g., imprision) those with whom it is justly in a "state of war"?
Yes, according to Locke, a "civil society" have the right to take power over those with whom it is justly in a "state of war" for the following reasons:
First of all, according to Locke, although the state of nature is not a state of war, it also can easily become one whenever someone is threatening the self-preservation of another. Killing may become the result in a fight, and because there is no judge to resolve the disputes in the state of nature, such states of war will exist as long as there are conflicts that are hard to solve if there is no specific laws to differentiate the right and the wrong. Thus, there are definitely wars in the state of nature and wars are inevitable. Because of freedom that each person in the state of nature has as his or her legislative, judicial and executive powers which will result in wars of all against all, Locke thinks that it is necessary to establish a political society as a "civil society" to make people give up their own powers that they have in the state of nature and in turn to make decisions by a majority group. He writes:Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as his persuaded the offence deserves, even death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion requires it. But because no political society can be, nor subsist, without, having in itself the power to preserve the property, and in order thereunto, punish the offences of all those of that society; there, and there only is political society, where every one of the members hath quitted this natural power, resigned it up into the hands of the community in all cases that excluded him not from appealing for protection to the law established by it... Those who are united into one body, and have a common established law and judicature to appeal to, with authority to decide controversies between them, and punish offenders, are in civil society one with another: but those who have no such common appeal, I mean on earth, are still in the state of nature, each being, where there is no other, judge for himself, and executioner; which is , as I have before shewed it, the perfect state of nature. (Chapter 7, paragraph 87)
Thus, when this civil society is established, which is called the common-wealth, everyone must give up his or her own powers to the common-wealth and let them be their representatives with powers to set down the punishment for offenders who they think deserve to be punished:
And this the common-wealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgression which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by anyone that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace;) and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of nay commonwealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where has can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representatives. (Chapter 7, paragraph 88)
1c) According to Locke, do humans in a "civil society" have the right to enslave those with whom they are at peace? Can a group of people who attack others for purposes of seizing people or land be considered a "civil society"?
No, according to Locke, a "civil society" doesn't have the right to enslave those with whom they are at peace. Nor can a group of people who attack others for purposes of seizing people or land be considered a "civil society" in the following paragraphs that he writes:
But there is another sort of servants, which by a peculiar name we call slaves, who being captives taken in a just war, are by the right of nature subjected to the absolute dominion and arbitrary power of their masters. These men having, as I say, forfeited their lives, and with it, their liberties, and lost their estates; and being in the state of slavery, not capable of any property, cannot in that state be considered as any part civil society; the chief and whereof is the preservation of property. (Chapter 7, paragraph 85)
And according to Hume, absolute domination of one human over another is also not consistent with "civil society":
If man in the state of nature be so free, a has been said; if he be absolute lord of his own person and possessions, equal to the greatest, and subject to nobody, why will he part with his freedom? Why will he gives up this empire, and subject himself to the dominion and controul of any other power? To which it is obvious to answer, that though in the state of nature he hath such a right, yet the enjoyment of it is very uncertain, and constantly exposed to the invasion of others: for all being kings as much as he, every man his equal, and the greater part no strict observers of equity and justive, the enjoyment of the property he has in this state is very unsafe, very unsecure. This makes him willing to quit a condition, which, however free, is full of fears and continual dangers: and it is not without reason, that he seeks out, and is willing to join in society with others, who are already united, or have a mind to unite, for the mutual preservation of their lives, liberties, and estates, which I call by the general name property. (An Enqiry, Chapter IX, paragraph 123)
2a) According to Hobbes, is it possible to live according to laws of nature without living in "the original condition of man"?
Yes, according to Hobbes, it is possible to live in compliance with the laws of nature without living in "the original condition of man". We know that the original condition of man includes the state of nature which according to Hobbes, are free and equal Hobbes writes:
The right of nature, which writers commonly call just naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto. (Leviathan, Chapter 14, paragraph 1)
Hobbes thinks that human beings desire freedom and want to preserve well their own happiness. But in the state of nature which is also a state of equality, human beings think that themselves have the same rights with other people, and therefore, they think it is reasonable for each of them to do anything that can be proved to be necessary for his or her to preserve themselves well. Hobbes writes: "Moreover, each of us is free in the sense that each has a natural right to 'use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature... " Since in nature, resources are scarce, the state of nature is also considered the state of scarcity. Thus, Hobbes believes that in order to preserve themselves well over these scarce resources, human beings will inevitably fight one another over these resources, and so conflicts and wars will burst out. And the result is that one will fight against another. Since the desire for self-preservation will lead us into conflicts which is a war of all against all, Hobbes describes that life is "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short... " To avoid war, Hobbes thinks we need some reasons or laws that command people to live in a more effective way to preserve themselves. And this is the reason why Hobbes create the first law of nature that we need, rules of reason, to dictate the most effective way to avoid war and to seek peace. Hobbes says:
and because the condition of man is a condition of war every one against every one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, there is nothing he can make use of that may not be help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body... And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endevour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. (Leviathan, Chapter 14, paragraph 4)
But the first law seems not to be clear of what people are expected to do, and therefore can still cause people to fight against people. To be more specific as what people should do to seek peace, Hobbes creates the second law which holds that "a man be willing, when others are so too... as for peace... to lay down his right to all things and be contented with so much libery against other men, as he would allow other men against himself."
In conclusion, to live by the state of nature is to live in war, and to escape war, we must line in compliance with the laws of nature. Therefore, it is possible to live according to the laws of nature without living in the state of nature.
2b) According to Locke, is it possible to live according to laws of nature without living in a "state of nature"?
No, according to Locke, it is not possible to live according to the laws of nature without living in the state of nature for the following reasons: For Locke, the state of nature is not a state of war where all fight against all. He thinks that a state of nature is a state of freedom, but this freedom is not license to everyone, and it must be shared among the citizens. Locke writes in his Treaties that:
But thought this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of license: though man in that state have an uncontrollable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare reservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions... Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb or goods of another." (The Second Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter 2, paragraph 6)
And this obligation that all persons are expected to continue to preserve their rights in safeguarding other people's rights is used in the laws of nature created by Locke. The first law, reparation, derives from the right of each person his or her self-preservation. The second law, which is about punishment, obligates each peson to preserve all other humankind. Thus, libery is not totally that one can do everything he or she wants to do because people in the state of nature are still under the laws of nature, and these laws secure each person's right to life and property in accordance with others' rights also. Since everyone is aware that living in a state of nature is just living in the laws of nature which reserves everyone's right and punish people for wrong doings, there is not necessary for people to fight against others since their rights are preserved by laws. Thus, a state of nature is not a state of war according to Locke.
In addition, when regarding to property rights, Locke thinks that since under the laws of nature, a right to property is that each person has a property for himself or herself, and that each person is obligated to uphold every other person's right to such a property. Therefore, to have a property in oneself is to have it through one's labor. However, according to Locke, although the state of nature is not necessary a state of war, the fight for properties can bring people to a war between them, and thus it is not completely impossible to have war in the state of nature. Therefore, both Locke and Hobbes agrees toward a method to solve this problem; that is, to establish a political society with a leader so that he can help create the appropriate laws, enforce these laws as well as practice these laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment