John Locke was an influential Enlightenment philosopher known for his ideas on empiricism and natural rights, asserting that individuals have inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, which greatly influenced modern political thought.
Introduction
John Locke, a prominent figure of the Enlightenment, was born on August 29, 1632, in Wrington, England. Renowned as both a philosopher and physician, Locke is often referred to as the ‘Father of Liberalism’ due to his significant impact on Enlightenment thought, particularly through his advocacy for the Social Contract Theory, government by consent, human freedom, and the role of reason in society. He argued that a society practicing intellectual and religious toleration was ideal for stability, earning him the title of the ‘father of the Enlightenment.’
Locke’s pivotal contribution lies in justifying the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which transitioned England from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional one. His writings provided essential philosophical foundations for this significant historical moment. Recent scholarship on Locke has revealed a wealth of new material, especially from the Lovelace collection, enhancing our understanding of his life and thought.
However, contemporary interpretations of Locke’s political theory have become increasingly divergent. Some view him through a lens of Hobbism, emphasizing an egoistic and utilitarian ethics, while others argue for a deontological perspective, presenting him as a classical natural law thinker. There are further characterizations of Locke as a “prince of individualists,” while others depict him as a collectivist akin to Rousseau.
The complexity of Locke’s philosophy is evident in the various interpretations, from Martin Seliger’s “liberal constitutionalism” to Macpherson’s reading of it as a theory of “capitalist appropriation.” Each interpretation has merit, but attempts to fit Locke into rigid philosophical categories often distort his rich and multifaceted ideas. This complexity creates a challenging comparison with contemporaries like Hobbes, illustrating the difficulties faced by those analyzing his work. As noted by J.W.W. Watkins, it is essential to recognize Locke’s unique contributions while acknowledging the diverse and sometimes conflicting interpretations of his philosophy.
Table of Contents
Major Works by John Locke
Throughout his prolific career, Locke penned several influential works that continue to shape political philosophy and education. Some of his major works include:
A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689): In this treatise, Locke argued passionately for religious toleration as the path to civil peace, opposing the policy of religious uniformity.
Two Treatises of Government (1689): Published anonymously in 1689 and acknowledged by Locke in 1704, these treatises critiqued Filmer’s theory and explained the true nature and purpose of civil government.
Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690): This work delved into the foundation of human knowledge and understanding, exploring the intricacies of human cognition. In this book he gave the concept of “Tabula Rasa” – White paper, void of all characters to describe human mind at birth.
Some Thoughts Concerning Education (1693): Locke’s treatise on education became the cornerstone of educational philosophy in England for over a century.
The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695): An exploration of religious thought, Locke’s work contributed to the broader discourse on faith and reason.
Of the Conduct of the Understanding (1706): This handbook for clear and rational thinking complemented Locke’s thoughts on education, providing guidance on self-education.
Important book on John Locke – “Political thought of John Locke” – John Dunn
Some Philosophical Problems in Locke’s Theory
Conflict Between Ideas
There’s a common debate about whether John Locke’s ideas on knowledge and his ideas about government can work together. Some critics think they contradict each other. Locke’s main book on knowledge, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, argues that all knowledge comes from experience—what we see, hear, and feel. This is called empiricism. For example, if you touch a hot stove, you learn it’s hot and painful through direct experience.
However, in his other important work, Second Treatise of Government, he talks about Natural Law, which suggests that there are universal moral rules that everyone should follow. For instance, the idea that stealing is wrong applies to everyone, even if someone has never personally been affected by theft.
Critics like C.E. Vaughan and George H. Sabine argue that these two views don’t match. They think that if Locke believes all knowledge comes from experience, he can’t also believe in these fixed moral laws.
Whereas, Locke himself disagrees with this criticism. He says that just because he doesn’t believe in innate ideas (ideas we’re born with), it doesn’t mean he rejects Natural Law. He believes that while our knowledge starts with experience, our minds play a key role in understanding that information. This makes his view different from later philosophers who were stricter empiricists.
Pleasure and Morality
Another debate arises from Locke’s connection between pleasure, pain, and morality. Critics claim that if good and evil are based on what brings pleasure or pain, it may seem like morality is merely about seeking pleasure or avoiding pain. For instance, if someone lies and it brings them pleasure or avoids discomfort, is that morally acceptable?
Locke insists that pleasure and pain are consequences of moral actions, not the foundation of morality itself. He believes that moral laws exist independently of their outcomes. For instance, if someone lies to avoid punishment, they might feel relieved (pleasure), but that doesn’t make lying morally right. Locke states, “Utility is not the basis of the law or the ground of obligation, but the consequence of obedience to it.” This means that just because something is useful or brings pleasure doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.
Paternal Authority and Political Power by John Locke
Locke’s philosophy diverged sharply from the prevailing beliefs of his time. While Filmer’s theory justified absolute power in monarchy through a patriarchal inheritance from Adam, Locke countered this notion vehemently. He argued that paternal authority could not be equated with political authority. Locke rooted freedom and liberty in reason, maintaining that as children grew rational, paternal authority should yield to their individual freedom.
In Locke’s view, political authority was exercised over equals and rested on consent, a foundational principle. He advocated three types of political power: Legislative (Supreme Power), Executive and Federative (Later equated with Foreign Policy). Unlike paternal authority, political power could be transferred from one government to another through the consent of the governed if a government failed to fulfill its responsibilities.
Locke’s utilization of the Social Contract Theory emphasized that legitimate political authority derived from the consent of the people, who retained the power to withdraw that consent if their freedom was violated or curtailed.
In the following sections, we will delve deeper into John Locke’s major works and explore the nuances of his philosophical ideas, shedding light on their enduring relevance in the modern world. Join us on this intellectual journey as we uncover the profound wisdom of John Locke, a luminary who illuminated the path to freedom and reason during the Enlightenment era.
State of Nature by John Locke
John Locke’s conception of the State of Nature serves as a foundational element of his political theory and ideas regarding civil society. In his work Two Treatises of Government (1689), Locke describes the State of Nature as a realm characterized by complete freedom and equality among individuals, governed by “peace, goodwill, mutual cooperation, and preservation.” He asserts that in this state, individuals are guided by the Law of Nature, derived from reason, which dictates that “no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.” Thus, Locke emphasizes that the State of Nature represents a domain of liberty rather than mere license.
Locke makes a critical distinction between liberty and license, arguing that true liberty involves acting in accordance with natural law. He states, “Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent,” possess the freedom to pursue their interests, but they must also respect the rights of others. However, he acknowledges that some individuals may choose to act against moral laws for selfish gain. In the absence of a political authority, resolving conflicts and ensuring justice becomes problematic.
The State of Nature, as Locke presents it, is fundamentally a rational construct rather than a historical reality, allowing him to explore the origins of political society. He posits that while the State of Nature is pre-political, it is not pre-social, as humans are inherently social beings. Locke insists that the State of Nature is marked by cooperation and mutual assistance. He argues, “Men are not by nature in a state of war,” suggesting that this state operates under a law that obliges individuals to act reasonably and justly toward one another.
Natural rights emerge as central to Locke’s theory, particularly the rights to life, liberty, and property. He states that these rights are inalienable, grounded in the Law of Nature, which he views as a reflection of divine reason. Locke contends that every person is bound not only to preserve themselves but also to consider the preservation of others, as long as their actions do not infringe upon their own rights.
Although liberty is a key aspect of the State of Nature, it is crucial to recognize that this freedom does not equate to anarchy. Locke emphasizes that individuals must refrain from harming others, ensuring that their pursuit of freedom does not violate the natural rights of their fellow beings. This balance of rights and responsibilities sets the stage for the establishment of civil society, where collective security and justice can be achieved through mutual consent and governance.
The Social Contract: Transition to Civil Society
John Locke’s social contract theory addresses the complexities of governance and individual rights. He asserts that individuals in a State of Nature opt to form a civil society through a social contract, surrendering certain rights but retaining their rights to life, liberty, and property.
Locke describes the state as an “unavoidable evil,” created after society is formed. The government, characterized as a ‘fiduciary trust’, operates under the community’s trust, bound to act within constitutional limits. He emphasizes that the government must judge and punish violations of natural laws, requiring the consent of the governed.
Once individuals enter this social contract, it becomes irrevocable; they “can never again be in the liberty of the state of nature.” Locke argues that humans are compelled by “strong Obligations of Necessity, Convenience, and Inclination” to form societies, where political power is defined as “the Right of making Laws with Penalties of Death” for the public good.
Consent is critical, as no one can be subjected to political power without it. The civil society’s common consent transforms into the consent of the majority, obligating all to adhere to the majority’s decisions. After civil society is established, a legislative body is appointed to execute natural law, which is the ‘supreme authority’.
Locke asserts that this legislative power is not arbitrary and must conform to the Law of Nature, emphasizing:
- Laws must be duly promulgated.
- Property cannot be taken without consent.
- Legislative powers cannot be transferred.
Critics like C.E. Vaughan argue that Locke lacks a clear theory of sovereignty, attributing it to individuals rather than an absolute power. However, Locke acknowledges a higher law—the Law of Nature—that limits government power while maintaining its authority.
George H. Sabine identifies four levels of authority in Locke’s Two Treatises: the individual, the community, the government (legislative), and the executive. Locke seeks a balance among these, emphasizing the supremacy of Natural Law. His theory significantly influences modern democratic thought, advocating for a government derived from the consent of the governed, thereby laying the groundwork for constitutional governance.
Read more about Thomas Hobbes – Thomas Hobbes: Politics, Philosophy and Social Contract
Right to Property: Labor and Limitations
In Locke’s political philosophy, the theory of property holds a prominent place. Locke rebuffs the argument put forth by Filmer, asserting that God had granted the earth exclusively to Adam and his heirs.
For Locke, an individual’s physical and mental capabilities, particularly the capacity for labor, serve as the distinguishing factor between privately owned property and common resources. When an individual mixes their labor with natural resources, they transform them into a form of private property.
Locke imposes three limitations on the right to appropriation in the State of Nature:
- Individuals should acquire only as much property as they can reasonably use.
- They must leave enough and of sufficient quality for others.
- Property rights extend only to what individuals acquire through the labor of their body and mind. Labor, according to Locke, determines the value of property by enhancing its utility and productivity.
Locke contends that the introduction of the concept of money in the State of Nature distorts these limited rights to appropriation, as property is converted into the form of money.
Crucially, Locke asserts that property precedes the government, as it is a natural right derived from natural law. Consequently, no government can deprive an individual of their property without their consent. The state’s primary role, in Locke’s view, is to safeguard individuals’ rights to liberty and property.
Locke’s emphasis on the right to property leads him to advocate for a minimal state with limited government power, the protection of individual rights, and a rejection of the hereditary principle of government.
John Locke’s theory was criticized by various thinkers such as Nozick, Waldron and simons etc on the basis that it is contradictory in nature as on one hand he is saying that right to property is a natural right while on the other hand he is restricting it with these limitations.
Civil or Political Society
Addressing the Inconveniences of the State of Nature, John Locke, in his profound exploration of political philosophy, outlined three key inconveniences that propelled individuals to transition from the State of Nature to a Civil or Political Society:
- Need for Established Known Law: In the State of Nature, there was a pressing need for a recognized and established legal framework to regulate human interactions.
- Need for an Impartial Judge: To resolve disputes fairly, an impartial and well-recognized judge was required—a role not fulfilled in the State of Nature.
- Need for Power to Support Justice: The absence of a centralized authority meant that there was no power to enforce just sentences and ensure their execution.
To address these challenges, individuals collectively established a Civil or Political Society by entering into the social contract. This newly formed society came complete with a government tasked with preserving the life, liberty, and property of its members.
The Limits on Government: Protecting Individual Rights
John Locke, a luminary in political philosophy, articulated a crucial principle regarding the boundaries of government authority. According to Locke, a government can be deemed illegitimate and subject to replacement if it infringes upon an individual’s natural right to liberty and property.
Moreover, Locke emphasized the importance of consent in governance. He contended that the government could not levy taxes on property without the explicit consent of the people. In essence, the authority to govern must rest on the will and agreement of the governed.
Individuals enter into the social contract to transition from the state of nature to civil or political society, making the legislature the supreme authority in this new social order. However, Locke emphasized that even the legislature is not above the law of nature. To ensure just and equitable governance, Locke delineated four essential limits on the legislature:
- Governance through Established Impartial Laws: The legislature must govern through established laws that are impartial and treat all members of society fairly.
- Laws Designed for the Common Good: Legislation must be designed to promote the welfare and well-being of the people as a whole.
- No Property Taxation Without Consent: Taxation on property cannot be raised without the explicit consent of the people, safeguarding their economic interests.
- No Transfer of Legislative Power: The legislature is prohibited from transferring its power to make laws to any other body, ensuring the continuity of the social contract.
Political Obligation: Obedience Grounded in the Public Good
Locke’s theory of political obligation centers on the idea that individuals are obligated to obey the government when the public power is wielded for the “peace, safety, and public good of the people.” In other words, a government’s legitimacy hinges on its commitment to serving the common welfare.
Crucially, Locke argued that individuals grant to the government only the powers they themselves possess in the state of nature—no more. This principle acts as a safeguard against the emergence of arbitrary and absolute governmental authority that could encroach upon individual liberties.
Furthermore, Locke introduced the concept of conditional political obligation. Citizens are not bound by unconditional obedience; they possess the legitimate right to change or dissolve the government under specific circumstances. These circumstances include:
- Establishment of Arbitrary Rule: When a leader imposes their arbitrary will above the law.
- Obstruction of the Legislature: When a ruler obstructs the legislature from fulfilling its designated purposes.
- Alteration of Elections Without Consent: When electoral processes are changed without consent and against the common interests of the people.
- Submission to Foreign Powers: When the people are subjected to foreign authority by the ruler or the legislature.
- Neglect of Laws: When the supreme executive power fails to uphold the laws.
Importantly, Locke asserted that the right of disobedience could be exercised by the majority rather than isolated individuals or small groups, reflecting a collective approach to addressing unjust authority.
Consent, Resistance, and Toleration in Locke’s Political Philosophy
Resistance and the Right to Revolt
Locke is often seen as a defender of the Glorious Revolution, positing that a ruler who abuses power forfeits legitimate authority and may be removed, potentially by force. He maintains that government dissolution can occur through foreign conquest or legislative obstruction. Although he suggests that the right to revolt typically belongs to the majority, Locke holds a conservative view, believing revolution should be a last resort. George H. Sabine observes that, despite advocating for the right to revolt, Locke was not inherently revolutionary.
Critics have argued that Locke restricts the right of revolution to the aristocratic class, suggesting that only educated property owners should resist tyrants. In contrast, In Revolutionary Politics, Gary Ashcraft critiques John Locke’s defense of the Glorious Revolution, arguing that Locke’s perspective on resistance is too narrow and elite-focused. He emphasizes that “resistance to tyranny is everyone’s business,” advocating for a more radical interpretation of political action where all individuals have a moral duty to oppose oppression, not just in cases of violated natural rights.
Religious Toleration
Locke passionately advocates for religious toleration, maintaining that individual conscience should remain free from external control. While he opposes religious persecution, he imposes limits on toleration, asserting that views contradicting essential moral rules should not be accepted. He specifically excludes atheists from toleration, claiming that removing God undermines the foundational bonds of society.
Differences between Hobbes and Locke on Natural Rights
| Aspect | Thomas Hobbes | John Locke |
|---|---|---|
| View of Human Nature | Pessimistic: Believes humans are inherently self-interested and competitive. State of Nature: Characterized by chaos and violence, leading to a “war of all against all.” Life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” | Optimistic: Views humans as rational and capable of cooperation. State of Nature: Generally peaceful, governed by natural law, where individuals respect each other’s rights. |
| Concept of Natural Rights | Survival: Individuals have a natural right to do whatever is necessary for self-preservation, including harming others if needed. Relinquishment: Rights are not absolute; they are surrendered to the sovereign in exchange for protection. | Inherent Rights: Identifies natural rights as life, liberty, and property, which are inherent and cannot be surrendered. Inalienable: These rights remain intact even within society. |
| Social Contract | Absolute Authority: Individuals agree to give up their rights to a powerful sovereign to escape the state of nature. No Right to Revolt: The sovereign’s power is absolute, and rebellion is not justified as it would return society to chaos. | Government for Protection: The social contract is an agreement to form a government that protects natural rights. Right to Revolt: Citizens have the right to overthrow a government that fails to protect their rights. |
| Nature of Government | Authoritarian: Advocates for a strong, centralized authority (absolute monarchy) to maintain order and security. Focus on Stability: Emphasizes security over individual freedoms. | Limited Government: Supports a government accountable to the people, operating under the rule of law. Focus on Rights: The primary role of government is to protect individual rights and freedoms. |
Famous Quotes by John Locke
- ‘I have always thought the actions of men are the best interpreters of their thoughts’.
- ‘What worries you, masters you’.
- ‘Government has no other end, but the presentation of property’.
- ‘All mankind….being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions’.
- ‘All wealth is a product of Labour’.
- ‘Everyman has a property in his own person. This nobody has the right to, but himself’.
- ‘Individuals are subjected to laws of nature’.
- ‘Laws are the command of sovereign backed by force”
- ‘Right to appeal to heaven’
- ‘Law does not restrict liberty as much as defend or enlarge it’.
- ‘White paper, void of all characters to describe human mind at birth’. – Concept of Tabula Rasa
Conclusion
John Locke remains one of the most controversial and influential figures in the history of political thought. His key emphases on constitutionalism, consent, and toleration have become integral components of modern political theory.
Locke was a pioneer in championing the doctrine of civil society and formulating the concept of government as a trust. He sought to empower people as the ultimate arbiters of government accountability by granting them the right to rebellion or revolution when their fundamental rights were threatened.
In today’s world, Locke’s ideas continue to resonate, inspiring discussions on governance, individual rights, and the essential relationship between the state and its citizens. His legacy endures, offering a framework for understanding and evaluating the role and limits of government in our lives.
Read More:
[…] entity or a monarchy but a power vested directly in the political community. Rousseau combined John Locke’s idea of Popular government and Hobbes’ idea of absolute sovereignty and gave the concept of Popular […]
[…] pivotal influence on Mary Wollstonecraft’s intellectual journey was the philosophy of John Locke. Locke’s assertion that a strong body is essential for the development of a strong mind […]
[…] Rawls built the foundation of his theory of justice upon John Locke’s social contract theory. According to Locke, the state of nature was characterized by peace, […]
[…] demand for a private system of accumulation. Notable proponents of the capitalist state, such as John Locke and Adam Smith, argue that the state is established to serve the common good and public interest. […]