Locke's Political Philosophy PDF

LOCKE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM The state of nature is a hypothetical society without government or laws. In this state, all individuals are free and equal, governed only by the laws of nature - a God-given ethical code inherent in human reason. This natural law promotes self-preservation and the protecti...

LOCKE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM The state of nature is a hypothetical society without government or laws. In this state, all individuals are free and equal, governed only by the laws of nature - a God-given ethical code inherent in human reason. This natural law promotes self-preservation and the protection of humanity. In the state of nature, people have the right to defend themselves against harm. However, this self-defense must be reasonable, aimed at reparation and deterrence rather than excessive punishment. For instance, if someone stole your lunch, you could reclaim it and seek compensation, but severe retaliation would be unjustified. PROPERTY In modern society, acquiring goods is simple through established markets. However, Locke considered how ownership works without government or laws. Locke proposed that people gain ownership through labor. While God provided the world's resources for all, individuals can claim ownership by investing work. For instance, cultivating an apple orchard grants ownership of its fruit. However, Locke outlined limitations on ownership: Respect others' property ○ Don't own so much that others lack resources ○ Only own what you can use or consume Locke emphasized respecting the earth's resources by limiting appropriation of land and goods. SLAVERY While slavery was common in Locke's time, his views were progressive. He argued that humans are naturally free and can't be enslaved, as it violates self-preservation. Locke contended that we can't willingly become slaves, as this contradicts natural law. We can sell our labor, but not our lives or bodies. The only exception Locke allowed for slavery was when someone forfeits their right to life through a serious crime. In such cases, the criminal might become a slave instead of facing execution. PEOPLE’S CONSENT Who has more power over you: your father or the king? How do these powers differ? Locke argued that parental power over children is legitimate due to children's undeveloped reasoning. Parents can restrict children's liberty for their protection. For example, a parent may stop a child from using drugs, assuming the child doesn't fully understand the consequences. In contrast, political power requires consent from all adults. People must agree to create a governing authority, as adults can reason and decide whether to accept political subjugation. Locke asserted that no ruler can exert power without the people's clear consent. This raises the question: Do these rules apply to people from other nations? FREEDOM DURING WAR While conquest is no longer common, Locke's views on its illegitimacy were ahead of his time. Throughout history, nations have subjugated others through force, but Locke argued that strength alone doesn't justify political power. Even in a just war, conquest doesn't grant authority over a foreign population. While combatants forfeit their right to life, civilians retain their rights. The conqueror gains no legitimate power over the people or property of the defeated nation. This examination of political power and its justification leads us to consider what constitutes a legitimate political system. DIVISION OF POWERS Many governments distribute power among different bodies like parliaments and executives, following Locke's idea of separation of powers. Locke viewed legislative power as supreme. When forming a political community, people give up their right to self-defense, delegating it to a legislative authority that creates laws and institutions to protect citizens and property. However, an executive power is also necessary to enforce laws. Crucially, these powers must be separate to prevent abuse. If combined, legislators might exempt themselves from laws or pass self-serving legislation, such as restricting free speech or arresting dissenters. AUTHORIZING AGAINST PEOPLE’S WILL Political power has limits, despite legislative authority being supreme. Elected legislators follow majority rule but can't act against people's interests. They must protect lives and property, not infringe on liberties through oppressive laws or excessive taxation. Executive power can act beyond law for public good (prerogative), like destroying property to stop a fire. However, this power is limited to serving the common interest. Both legislative and executive powers have clear boundaries. The question remains: what happens when these limits are violated? RIGHT TO REBEL Throughout history, people have rebelled against political authority, as seen in recent events like the Arab Spring. This concept was central to Locke's 17th-century ideas. Locke argued that people have the right to forcefully resist political authority in several situations: When rulers act tyrannically, beyond the law and for self-interest ○ When power is transferred without people's consent (e.g., through favoritism) ○ When legislative power loses public trust Importantly, Locke believed only the people can judge whether resistance is justified, not the authorities being challenged. Critics argue this could lead to constant upheaval, but Locke maintained that if people feel political powers are misused, they have the right to resist. SUMMARY: Locke's Political Philosophy - State of nature: Individuals are free and equal, governed by natural law promoting self-preservation - Property ownership is gained through labor, with limitations to respect others and resources - Slavery violates natural law, except as punishment for serious crimes - Political power requires consent from adults, unlike parental authority over children Government Structure and Rights - Separation of powers: Legislative is supreme, but separate executive needed to prevent abuse - Political power has limits: Must preserve liberty - People have the right to rebel against tyrannical rulers or when power is misused HOBBES Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" explores civil society and the rule of law. In 17th century England, Hobbes observed widespread suffering and proposed a solution: a strong, centralized power supported by the people to maintain peace. His concept of the Leviathan revolutionized political philosophy and remains relevant in debates about effective governance today. POWER & VIOLENCE Human nature is driven by a desire for power and a constant threat of violence. Our ability to understand cause and effect through language leads to the concept of desire, which ultimately boils down to a will for power. Power, defined as the ability to acquire what one wants, can be natural or instrumental. This pursuit of power creates rivalries and competition, leading to fear and potential violence. The inherent equality among humans in their capacity to harm one another results in a world of distrust and fear. This perpetual competition for power can lead to a constant state of war. SOCIAL CONTRACT A peaceful society requires individuals to surrender some rights for collective fairness. Without this, perpetual conflict may arise. The solution? A social contract. This contract allows us to do to others only what we permit them to do to us. By giving up our right to harm others, we ensure our own safety. However, this system relies on mutual trust and participation. If the threat of harm persists, individuals may be reluctant to relinquish their right to self-defense. Maintaining a covenant of mutually sacrificed rights forms the basis for justice. Any breach of this covenant is unjust. If one person fears their neighbor will break the contract, they may preemptively break it, potentially causing a chain reaction. This could lead to social breakdown, much like a garment unraveling. To preserve social cohesion, each individual must adhere to the social contract, surrendering some rights for the common good. A stable social contract is easier to maintain when individuals align with societal norms, as this reduces suspicion and fear. Just as a stone house is built with smooth, even stones for a solid foundation, a well-functioning society requires individuals who fit harmoniously within the whole. THE “LEVIATHAN” A society needs a sovereign ruler, or "leviathan," to maintain the social contract. Individuals must surrender some rights for collective safety, but to whom? A strong, sovereign force becomes this leviathan. This ruler isn't necessarily despotic, but rather a unified body representing all people. The leviathan's power stems from the combined strength of every individual in society. Thus, any unjust action against the sovereign body is a crime against the entire Commonwealth, including the perpetrator. Metaphorically, if the Commonwealth were a human form, the leviathan would be its head. The Commonwealth is structured like a human body, with the sovereign ruler as the head and individuals as vital components. Hobbes described the commonwealth as a collective body, often personified as a single entity called the "Leviathan." This Leviathan represents the authority and power of the sovereign, which can be a monarch or an assembly. Ministers act as limbs, militia as muscles, forming a unified structure that prevents power division. Like an organism, the Commonwealth needs nourishment to function. Trade currency serves as lifeblood, while goods and services provide sustenance. People submit to a strong, secure authority due to the challenge of surrendering personal rights. The leviathan, drawing strength from its constituents, effectively fulfills this role, absorbing individual power to strengthen the collective. ON THE TYPES OF GOVERNMENT There are three basic forms of government: aristocracy, democracy, and monarchy. Monarchy is considered the best due to its consistency. A single ruler can make decisions more efficiently, maintaining a stable social contract and ensuring societal security. While other government types exist, they often align with these three basic forms. For example, a government with an elected president is essentially a democracy, while one with an appointed governor functions as a monarchy. Monarchy's advantages include: Consistent decision-making, as one mind governs Alignment of monarch's interests with subjects Simpler succession, reducing conflict risks These factors contribute to a more stable and secure Commonwealth. MONOPOLY OF LEVIATHAN The Leviathan maintains exclusive control over force to preserve peace and uphold the social contract. A sovereign ruler ensures peace by monopolizing the right to punish. This monopoly is necessary because mere agreements are often ineffective. The threat of punishment deters rule-breaking. As humans naturally seek power through force, the sovereign must control its use. Allowing individuals to use force freely would undermine the social contract. Paradoxically, the fear of punishment most effectively maintains the social contract. The Leviathan can delegate punishment to authorized representatives. The sovereign appoints judges to evaluate actions and administer punishment. The military, police, and authorized armed forces uphold Commonwealth laws under the Leviathan's authority. However, the sovereign's punitive power has limits. Self-harm cannot be mandated as it contradicts the right to self-preservation, which the Leviathan was established to protect. The sovereign creates laws and penalties, while judges, military, and police enforce them daily to maintain order and the social contract. LEVIATHAN’S ROLE ON LIBERTY People enjoy as much freedom under a Leviathan as without it. Counterintuitively, a strong sovereign ruler increases overall liberty. In our natural state, life is harsh and fearful. True freedom means acting without constant threat. A sovereign who prevents harm thus ensures liberty. Before England's Commonwealth, people struggled to protect their rights. After its establishment, they gained the freedom to peacefully pursue their livelihoods. Some philosophers argue that democracy is the only truly free form of governance, but history suggests otherwise. Ancient Athens and Rome, despite their democratic systems, faced significant turmoil. In Athens, powerful individuals were banished, while Rome experienced wars between the Senate and the people under leaders like Pompey and Caesar. Contrary to ensuring freedom, these democratic systems often led to chaos. The Leviathan, based on a social contract, allows individuals to retain their essential freedoms. While some may view Commonwealth laws as restrictive, each citizen has agreed to these terms. As long as one adheres to the social contract, they remain free to make personal decisions, from choosing where to live to how to raise their children. LEVIATHAN’S POWER OVER RELIGION The Leviathan must reign sovereign over religion to prevent conflicting societal rules. Multiple governance systems increase civil war risk. Thus, all Commonwealth matters, including faith and doctrine, should be under sovereign rule. Divided control invites discord, potentially leading to strife and violence. Even religious power shouldn't challenge the Leviathan's authority. Hobbes argues that God doesn't exist in this world, as only physically perceivable things exist. However, he posits that God's kingdom exists after earthly life, not opposing the sovereign's rule but following it. While God created the world, He exists outside it and doesn't intervene. Despite God's kingdom's potential power, society needs a single set of rules. To maintain stability and uphold the social contract, divine rule must be subordinate to the Leviathan's rule. LAWS AND RELIGION Hobbes argued that Commonwealth laws should be based on concrete knowledge of the actual world, not religion. Despite religion's influential role in society during his time, Hobbes believed civil laws should derive from sensory perception of the physical world. He rejected both religious and philosophical bases for law, viewing them as founded on incorrect word definitions. Hobbes favored state law over canonical law, considering the latter misguided and based on superstition rather than fact. Hobbes asserted that viable philosophies and laws should stem from observable physical phenomena. He dismissed supernatural concepts as imaginary, arguing that coincidences don't prove the existence of spirits. Instead, Hobbes proposed that laws should reflect individuals' logical understanding of cause and effect, based on their sensory experiences of the world. Summary: - Thomas Hobbes proposed a strong, centralized power (Leviathan) to maintain peace in society - Language and precise words are crucial for understanding the world and reasoning - Human nature is driven by desire for power, leading to competition and potential violence - A peaceful society requires individuals to surrender some rights for collective fairness The Leviathan and Governance - A sovereign ruler or "leviathan" is needed to uphold the social contract - Monarchy is considered the best form of government due to its consistency - The Leviathan maintains a monopoly on force to preserve peace and uphold the social contract - People retain essential freedoms under the Leviathan's rule Religion and Law in Hobbes' Theory - The Leviathan must have sovereignty over religion to prevent conflicting societal rules - Commonwealth laws should be based on concrete knowledge of the actual world, not religion ROUSSEAU CONSENT "People are born free, but society often limits this freedom." Rousseau criticized how European society restricted people's freedom. He asked if these limits helped society or just made things unfair. In his book "The Social Contract," Rousseau looked at why rulers have power and when living in a society is good for people. His main idea was that governments are only fair when people freely agree to be part of them. Rousseau disagreed with two common reasons given for why rulers should have power: Rulers are naturally better than others (like how parents are in charge of children) Rulers can force people to obey them Instead, he said that for a government to be fair, people must choose to accept it. A government is legitimate when people agree to work together for everyone's benefit. This means giving up some freedoms in exchange for things like safety and a better life for all. SOCIAL CONTRACT Before humans formed communities by entering a social contract, they lived in what Rousseau calls the “state of nature.” This is the period before humans were brought together under the rule of law. EXAMPLE: Sacrificing your freedom to flirt with others for the security that your partner provides. Your partner is the government in this case. In the state of nature, Rousseau argued, humans possessed what he calls a “natural freedom.” Having no restraints on their actions, humans were free to act on any impulse, desire, or temptation that struck them. Under the social contract, humans traded natural freedom for civil freedom and community benefits. This exchange limited individual actions but provided safety and comfort, enabling pursuit of higher goals. The rule of law marked a significant shift. It compelled humans to control impulses, consider consequences, and act morally for others' sake. This transition essentially transformed humans into rational and moral beings. Key message: Humans achieve full humanity under the rule of law, resulting in a dual consciousness, a) individual with personal desires, and b) social beings with obligations to society. General Will The word “sovereign” already had a meaning before Rousseau took hold of it. In its common usage, of course, the word sovereign refers to any ruler who exercises ultimate authority over a population. Traditionally, this would be a king or queen. Now, Rousseau keeps this idea, but denies that sovereignty can be exercised by a single person or group of people. Instead, he argues that the true source of authority in society is the social contract, which is itself an expression of the general will of the people. The king is no longer sovereign over the people; the people are sovereign over the king. The key message here is: In a legitimate state, the law should reflect the general will of the people. So, what does it really mean for the people to be sovereign over their nation? It means that the people freely choose the laws that govern them. In an ideal state, citizens consent to laws benefiting all. Laws preserving rights and freedoms are legitimate as they serve the collective good. The laws represent the people's collective beliefs. Passing laws expresses and enforces commitment to the common good. Rousseau considers all legitimate states republican, as they're ruled by the people. This applies to the legislative process. The government implementing laws can take various forms, including monarchy, if it exercises the people's will. While a monarchy is probably not the best choice for a republic, Rousseau does make a point of emphasizing the positives of separating the sovereign from the government. That way, the people who implement the law are not the same people as those who decide the law, and you avoid any potential conflicts of interest. On the Types of Government While there are many ways of running a government, they all fall roughly into one of three types: a democracy, an aristocracy, and a monarchy. Democratic - Citizens are involved in enforcing laws Aristocratic - Small portion is involved Single Person - Monarchy Mixed - People are assigned with different levels of involvement The key message here is: Of the three types of government, aristocracy has the most advantages. Let’s deal first with democracy. Democracy before was different because it was a system where all the citizens are involved in actually running the government. He thinks that such a system would be incredibly impractical and inefficient to operate such a massive bureaucracy. For this reason, he determined that democracy could work in only very small states. Next up is monarchy.. He admits that monarchies are very efficient, since all power is wielded by a single person, but is also dangerous if the monarch becomes corrupt. Finally, then, we have aristocracy — the best-case scenario for Rousseau. While the word aristocracy may have a bad reputation, if we consider that the literal meaning of aristocracy is rule by the best, then it doesn’t seem so controversial. Of course, in practice, the ruling elite aren’t always the most skilled or qualified for the job. But, Rousseau maintains, an aristocracy elected on the basis of merit is still the most surefire way we have of ensuring that there are competent leaders at the helm. Popular assemblies are the surest way to communicate the general will. The government, regardless of its form, is ultimately accountable to the sovereign people. The sovereign sets laws for the government to implement, while the government ensures the sovereign follows these laws. This creates a balance of power. In reality, this balance often resembles a rivalry. Government officials may be tempted to abuse their power for personal gain, risking their obligation to the people. To prevent this, citizens must regularly evaluate their government to ensure it represents the general will. Rousseau advocates for regular democratic assemblies as the best method to achieve this. Popular assemblies are key to expressing the general will in Rousseau's direct democracy model. Citizens gather to propose, discuss, and vote on laws, and evaluate government performance. While seemingly impractical today, Rousseau points to historical precedents like the Roman Republic's comitia. These assemblies mobilized citizens to vote on laws directly. States should instill citizens with civic virtues by establishing a state religion. Civic virtues are positive qualities that make someone a good citizen, such as voting and obeying laws. Rousseau argued for promoting civic virtues through state-sponsored religion. He believed that ancient societies benefited from the unity of religion and national identity, whereas Christianity's separation from the state weakened civic engagement. To address this, Rousseau proposed a civil religion with basic dogmas encouraging good citizenship. These include revering the law and constitution, and valuing liberty and equality. Essentially, he suggested making the state itself a national religion, while still allowing personal religious freedom. SUMMARY: 1. Consent and Legitimacy States are only legitimate when citizens freely consent to live in them Rulers' authority isn't justified by superiority or power alone Legitimacy stems from voluntary agreement among citizens for mutual benefit 2. The Social Contract Involves trading some individual freedoms for collective advantages Natural freedom is exchanged for civil freedom Law marks the point when humans became rational and moral beings 3. The General Will Society has a will of its own, called the general will The people are sovereign over the rulers Laws should reflect the general will of the people 4. Forms of Government Three main types: democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy Rousseau favors aristocracy elected on merit Democracy (direct rule by all citizens) deemed impractical for large states Monarchy efficient but risky if the monarch is corrupt or incompetent 5. Popular Assemblies Regular democratic assemblies are crucial for communicating the general will Citizens should evaluate government performance frequently Assemblies promote civic virtue and participation 6. Civic Virtues and State Religion Civic virtues are qualities that make someone a good citizen Rousseau proposes a state-sponsored civil religion to promote civic virtues  Basic dogmas should encourage better citizenship and national unity