lOMoARcPSD|10768863

Summary notes of Locke's Political Philosophy

Classical Political Philosophy (University of Delhi)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

John Locke

- Analyse John Locke's theory of Natural Rights. How does it make him the founder of
classical liberalism?
- What do you understand by State of Nature? Compare Hobbes' and Locke's state of
nature.
- Discuss the Social Contract Theory of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
- Discuss Locke's view on Property
- Explain Locke's Theory of Consent

INTRODUCTION TO LOCKE

Locke is considered a central figure in western liberal philosophy and the theorization of human
rights can be traced back to him. His stand against political absolutism is the starting point of
modern liberal constitutionalism. He is also considered among the first British Empiricists. He
believed that at birth our mind is tabula rasa (blank slate) and all ideas were learnt or adopted
through experience, hence they were also fallible. In this sense, he was also an idealist as he felt
that most of the time we have to make do with probabilities and that it is through reason we
are able to see these probable connections and reach reasonable beliefs.

He lived during a very eventful time in English politics, with the Civil War, Interregnum,
Restoration, Exclusion Crisis, and Glorious Revolution all happening during his lifetime. Though
he studied diverse subjects (including medicine), throughout most of his life Locke held
administrative positions in government and paid very careful attention to contemporary
debates in political theory. So it is no surprise that he wrote a number of works on political
issues. In this field, Locke is best known for his arguments in favor of religious toleration and
limited government. He has the same starting point as Hobbes but his arguments are more
optimistic and less consistent. Today these ideas are commonplace and widely accepted. But in
Locke’s time they were highly innovative, even radical.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

MAJOR WORKS

● His most important ideas can be found in the Two Treatises of government. The First
Treatise (1680) takes the form of a detailed critique of a work called Patriacha by Robert
Filmer. Filmer had argued in favor of the divine rights theory of monarchy. In his view,
the power of kings ultimately originated in the dominion which God gave to Adam and
which had passed down in an unbroken chain through the ages. Locke disputes this on a
number of historical grounds, including how this speculation condemned people to
slavery under monarchs.
● After clearing some ground in the First Treatise, Locke offers a positive view of the
nature of government in the much more influential Second Treatise (1689). In this work
he tries to offer a different account of the origins of government. While Filmer had
suggested that humans had always been subject to political power, Locke argues for the
opposite. According to him, humans were initially in a state of nature. The state of
nature was apolitical in the sense that there were no governments and each individual
retained their natural rights. People possessed these natural rights (including the right to
attempt to preserve one’s life, to seize unclaimed valuables, and so forth) because they
were given by God to all of his people.
● In A Letter on Toleration (1689) he largely discusses religious toleration and right to
dissent in detail.

ORIGINS OF EQUALITY AND NATURAL RIGHTS

● Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any
particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights
that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). They are usually defined in
opposition to those bestowed onto a person by a legal system.

● Locke argued that God is the creator and he did not grant superiority to any individuals
in modern day society, as was often argued in the past. Here we see a transition from
Hobbes' conservatism to liberalism.

● With this, Locke believed that the law of nature (God's reason) governs his State of
Nature and also claims it as the basis of his natural law theory. He postulates that “the
fundamental law of nature being that all, as much as may be, should be preserved”. This
means that a “law of nature grants to all persons access to the earth and its fruits for
their sustenance” . This fundamental law of nature provides a basic for a human living

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

condition in a way that it states that no one can be denied the right to sustain himself on
earth.

● Every other law of nature is a derivation of the fundamental law of nature. Since the
latter is justified through reason, God and universality, all further laws that are derived
from the fundamental law of nature “can be rationally justified on the basis of the
fundamental law of nature”.

● The term ‘natural law’ or ‘law of nature’ in Locke refers to normative laws which guide
the society and which are universal, i.e. they don’t display how the society and the
individual are but rather how they should be. The normative aspect goes hand in hand
with universality. Since the ‘law of nature’ is not specific in regards to values and beliefs,
it “applies to all persons at all times and in all places”.

STATE OF NATURE

● State of nature, as we know, has been a subject of all contract theories of the state. It
was conceived as a state prior to the establishment of political society.

● In Locke's version it is pre-political, though not pre-social, for men are essentially social
by nature. The state of nature, far from being a war of all against all, is a state of "peace,
goodwill, mutual assistance and self-preservation."

● In the state of nature men have natural right to life, liberty and property. These rights
are inalienable and inviolable for they are derived from the Law of Nature which is God's
reason.

● Everyone is bound by reason not only to preserve oneself but to preserve all humankind,
insofar as his own preservation does not come in conflict with it.

● People are free and equal and there is no commonly acknowledged superior whose
orders they are obliged to obey. Everybody is the judge of their own actions.

● Therefore, his state of nature is a condition without civil authority, in which both peace
and mutual distrust prevails. Hence, there arises a need for political authority and power
to ensure that possibilities of a state of war are avoided and certain inalienable rights
are protected.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

SOCIAL CONTRACT AND THEORY OF CONSENT

● Locke’s claim is that government arose in the above context, i.e., individuals are impelled
to form a civil society in order to escape the inconveniences of the ‘state of nature’.
Seeing the benefits which could be gained, they decided to relinquish some of their
rights to a central authority while retaining other rights.

● This took the form of a contract. In agreement for relinquishing certain rights, individuals
would receive protection from physical harm, security for their possessions, and the
ability to interact and cooperate with other humans in a stable environment.

● This common superior (in this case the government) has to be established by individual
consent. Consent can be tacit or direct. Individuals in the state of nature would ideally
want to submit to the power of the government so as to ensure their security and
protection of their property.

● The literature on Locke’s theory of consent tends to focus on how Locke does or does
not successfully answer the objection that few people have actually consented to their
governments so no, or almost no, governments are actually legitimate. This conclusion is
problematic since it is clearly contrary to Locke’s intention.

● Locke’s doctrine of tacit consent aids him in this regard. In this case, simply by walking
along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and
agrees to obey it while living in its territory or children, when they accept the property
of their parents, consent to the jurisdiction of the commonwealth over that property.
This, Locke thinks, explains why resident aliens have an obligation to obey the laws of
the state where they reside, though only while they live there. Inheriting property
creates an even stronger bond, since the original owner of the property permanently
put the property under the jurisdiction of the commonwealth. This in turn has led to
numerous debates-

○ This makes Pitkin question whether it is consent or natural law that takes central
position in his theorization.

○ Simmons claims that Locke’s arguments push toward “philosophical anarchism,”

the position that most people do not have a moral obligation to obey the
government, even though Locke himself would not have made this claim.

○ Davis (2014) closely examines Locke’s terminology and argues that we must
distinguish between political society and legitimate government. Only those who
have expressly consented are members of political society, while the government

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

exercises legitimate authority over various types of people who have not so
consented.

○ Hoff (2015) goes still further, arguing that we need not even think of specific acts
of tacit consent (such as deciding not to emigrate or walking on the highway) as
necessary for generating political obligation. Instead, consent can be implied if
the government itself functions in ways that show it is answerable to the people.

RIGHT TO DISSENT

● Since governments were instituted by the citizens of those governments, there are a
number of very important consequences.

○ In this view, rulers have an obligation to be responsive to the needs and desires
of these citizens.

○ In establishing a government the citizens had relinquished some, but not all of
their original rights. So no ruler could claim absolute power over all elements of a
citizen’s life. This carved out important room for certain individual rights or
liberties.

○ A government which failed to adequately protect the rights and interests of its
citizens or a government which attempted to overstep its authority would be
failing to perform the task for which it was created. As such, the citizens would
be entitled to revolt and replace the existing government with one which would
suitably carry out the duties of ensuring peace and civil order while respecting
individual rights.

So Locke was able to use the account of natural rights and a government created through
contract to accomplish a number of important tasks.

● He could use it to show why individuals retain certain rights even when they are subject
to a government.

● He could use it to show why despotic governments which attempted to unduly infringe
on the rights of their citizens were bad.

● And he could use it to show that citizens had a right to dissent in instances where
governments failed in certain ways. These are powerful ideas which remain important
even today.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

ON PROPERTY

● Locke’s Second Treatise on government contains an influential account of the nature of

private property.

● According to Locke, God gave humans the world and its contents to have in common.
The world was to provide humans with what was necessary for the continuation and
enjoyment of life. But Locke also believed it was possible for individuals to appropriate
individual parts of the world and justly hold them for their own exclusive use, i.e., Locke
believed that we have a right to acquire private property.

● He says ' Every man has a property in his own person. Man owns his own person and the
fruits of his labor.

● Locke’s claim is that we acquire property by mixing our labor with some natural
resource. For eg., if I discover some grapes growing on a vine, through my labor in
picking and collecting these grapes I acquire an ownership right over them. If I find an
empty field and then use my labor to plow the field then plant and raise crops, I will be
the proper owner of those crops. It is labor which creates value.

● Locke places some limitations on the way in which property can be acquired by mixing
one’s labor with natural resources.

● First, there is what has come to be known as the Waste Proviso or Spoilage Limitation.
One must not take so much property that some of it goes to waste. If the goods of the
Earth were given to us by God, it would be inappropriate to allow some of this gift to go
to waste.

● Second, there is the Enough-And-As-Good Proviso or the Sufficiency Limitation. This

says that in appropriating resources I am required to leave enough and as good for
others to appropriate. If the world was left to us in common by God, it would be wrong
of me to appropriate more than my fair share and fail to leave sufficient resources for
others.

● Then there is also the labor limitation- Man can only own as much as he can tilt- nothing
more nothing less

● After currency is introduced and after governments are established the nature of
property obviously changes a great deal. Using money, which does not perish like
foodstuffs and or goods, individuals are able to accumulate much more wealth than
would be possible otherwise. So the proviso concerning waste seems to drop away. The

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

ability to employ more labor can also help surpass the labor limitation. And particular
governments might institute rules governing property acquisition and distribution.

● Locke was aware of this and devoted a great deal of thought to the nature of property
and the proper distribution of property within a commonwealth. His writings on
economics, monetary policy, charity, and social welfare systems are evidence of this. But
Locke’s views on property inside of a commonwealth have received far less attention
than his views on the original acquisition of property in the state of nature.

ON TOLERATION

● Toleration is a central tenet of liberal political and ethical philosophy. It becomes

important as a principle when there is diversity of thought, opinions, faiths and practices
in a society. It is voluntary and it gives one the space for mutual disagreement and
objections. Acceptance or indifference does not require toleration.

● Locke had been systematically thinking about issues relating to religious toleration since
his early years in London and even though he only published A Letter Concerning
Toleration in 1689 he had finished writing it several years before.

● The question of whether or not a state should attempt to prescribe one particular
religion within the state, what means states might use to do so, and what the correct
attitude should be toward those who resist conversion to the official state religion had
been central to European politics ever since the Protestant Reformation.

● Locke’s time in England, France, and the Netherlands had given him experiences of three
very different approaches to these questions. These experiences had convinced him
that, for the most part, individuals should be allowed to practice their religion without
interference from the state.

● Indeed, part of the impetus for the publication of Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration
came from Louis XIV’s revocation of the Edict of Nantes, which took away the already
limited rights of Protestants in France and exposed them to state persecution.

● Relating to Locke’s epistemological views, (recall from above) Locke thought the scope of
human knowledge was extremely restricted and fallible. We might not be particularly
good at determining what the correct religion or way to salvation is. There is no reason
to think that those holding political power will be any better at discovering the true
religion than anyone else, so they should not attempt to enforce their views on others.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

● Instead, each individual should be allowed to pursue true beliefs as best as they are
able. Little harm results from allowing others to have their own religious beliefs. Indeed,
it might be beneficial to allow a plurality of beliefs because one group might end up with
the correct beliefs and win others over to their side.

● Relating to Locke’s political views, as expressed in the Two Treatises, Locke endorses
toleration on the grounds that the enforcement of religious conformity is outside the
proper scope of government. People consent to governments for the purpose of
establishing social order and the rule of law. Governments should refrain from enforcing
religious conformity because doing so is unnecessary and irrelevant for these ends.
Indeed, attempting to enforce conformity may positively harm these ends as it will likely
lead to resistance from members of prohibited religions.

● Locke also suggests that governments should tolerate the religious beliefs of individual
citizens because enforcing religious belief is actually impossible. Acceptance of a certain
religion is an inward act, a function of one’s beliefs. But governments are designed to
control people’s actions. So governments are, in many ways, ill-equipped to enforce the
adoption of a particular religion because individual people have an almost perfect
control of their own thoughts.

● While Locke’s views on toleration were very progressive for the time and while his views
do have an affinity with our contemporary consensus on the value of religious toleration
it is important to recognize that Locke did place some severe limits on toleration.

○ He did not think that we should tolerate the intolerant, those who would seek to
forcibly impose their religious views on others.

○ Similarly, any religious group that claimed higher allegiance than social contract
or posed a threat to political stability or public safety should not be tolerated. For
eg, Locke included Roman Catholics in this group as he felt their fundamental
allegiance to the Pope made them a threat to civil government and peace.

○ Finally, Locke also believed that atheists should not be tolerated. Because they
did not believe they would be rewarded or punished for their actions in an
afterlife, Locke did not think they could be trusted to behave morally or maintain
their contractual obligations.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|10768863

CRITICISMS

● Some criticize his State of Nature for being ahistorical

● Privileged rights over duties despite natural law commanding both

● Theistic-dependency/ nature of work criticized

● Lack of clarity on who exactly the sovereign is- George Sabine gives multiple levels of
authority where natural law/ God is the sovereign and there are other branches and
practical levels of authority (like community, legislature, judiciary, executive) to enforce
natural law.

● Macpherson critiques both Locke and Hobbes for basing the ideas on a false notion of
possessive individualism, where the individual is seen in an atomistic manner, owing
nothing to society. He also says that their states of nature are inspired by the emerging
market society and are therefore not neutral. He believes a more optimistic human
nature is possible.

● His idea of toleration was also criticized for missing how force can influence one to
consider a religion, even if not inwardly persuade. It is also highlighted that intolerance
of higher allegiance has become the norm of modern sovereignty. His views on atheism
are also outdated.

Downloaded by Sarita Bhagwana (bhagwanasarita@gmail.com)