John Locke
Second Treatise
on Government
Locke’s Second Treatise
I. Biographical/Historical Background
II. State of Nature One
III. Freedom, Liberty, and License
IV. Property and Labor
I. Historical Background
John Locke (1632 –
1704)
Enters Oxford in 1651
Studies philosophy,
natural history, medicine
Becomes physician and
advisor to First Earl of
Shaftesbury (big Whig
politician)
Reign of Charles II,
Charles dies in 1685
I. Historical Background
Line of succession issue (Catholic vs.
Protestant)
Locke – through Shaftesbury – gets
implicated in plot to assassinate James
Leaves England for Holland in 1683
Begins to write anonymous political pamphlets,
including the Two Treatises on Government
(1689)
I. Historical Background
1688 “Glorious Revolution” in
England
Replace the Catholic line from
James with William and Mary
(both Protestant)
Locke was an advisor to
William while the two of them
were in Holland together
In exchange for throne, William
& Mary agreed to a more
limited, constitutional
monarchy
Signed “Toleration Act” which
allowed for religious toleration
for most faiths (except
Catholicism and Unitarianism)
I. Historical Background
Locke lives out his days on government
pension
… without further ado, Locke’s Second Treatise
II. State of Nature 1
Locke begins Chapter 2:
“To understand political power right, and derive it
from its original, me must consider what state all
men are naturally in…”
What we need to know, then, is the natural
condition of mankind
II. State of Nature 1
Continuing with the quote from the opening
of Chapter 2
“… and that is a state of perfect freedom to order
their actions, and dispose of their possessions,
and persons as they think fit, within the bounds
of the law of Nature, without asking leave, or
depending upon the will of any other man.”
What does that mean?
II. State of Nature 1
Individuals living in state of nature
Also seems we need to know 3 things:
1. Freedom
2. Law of nature
3. Property Rights
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
Two senses of freedom at work here
Free from any social bonds, which means
Not dependent on the will of any other people
I can do “X” without asking someone else’s approval
to do “X”
Bear in mind, he is saying that this freedom is natural;
that we naturally are free from any social constraints
or relations
Note: to this point in human history, very few people
could be said to enjoy freedom in this sense
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
But it’s not just any freedom, rather it’s
freedom in accord with “the law of nature”
And that law is:
“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” (chp.2, par 6).
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
We get 2 arguments to support this view:
1. Religious
Each of us is created in God’s image
We don’t have the right to destroy ourselves (as we
are God’s creatures), so we can’t have the right to
destroy others like us
2. Secular
“equal and independent” phrase
Moral sympathy and rationality
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
Summary
In state of nature we have freedom, which is life in
accordance with the law of nature
Distinction between liberty and license
For Locke, liberty is not the right to do everything,
but rather to do anything in accordance with the
law of nature
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
Locke contra Hobbes
Locke basically agrees with the structure of
Hobbes’ argument, but disagrees with his account
There is a sense in which people in Hobbes state
of nature have freedom, but it is not a freedom we
would want; it is self-defeating
But…How can I be free if I must obey a law?
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
Drug addict example
Do I want to be the kind of person who smokes crack?
Do I want to smoke crack now? Or now? Or..
Only the first person is truly free, and that person is
obeying a rule or law
Freer in that life is more fully an expression of your own will
When following the laws of nature, you are following
the dictates of your own reason and nothing else
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
In other words, freedom does not mean
war… it means peace!
Think of interpersonal interaction … do we
need a sovereign to tell us what is right?
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
So for Locke, state of nature is when we are
all free, indeed it is a state of perfect freedom
Also a state of equality, since no one is
forced to submit to any authority higher than
the dictates of her own reason
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
Chapter 2
“A state also of equality, wherein all the power and
jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another:
there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of
the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the
same advantages of Nature, and the use of the same
faculties, should also be equal one amongst another
without subordination or subjection, unless the Lord and
Master of them all, should by any manifest declaration of
his will set one above another, and confer on him by an
evident and clear appointment an undoubted right to
dominion and sovereignty.”
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
For Hobbes, freedom and equality were in
large measure responsible for the state of
nature being a war of all against all
For Locke, freedom and equality lead to a
radically different situation
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
“Men living together according to reason,
without a common superior on Earth, with
authority to judge between them, is properly
the state of Nature” (chp. 3, par. 19).
II. Freedom, Liberty, License
Which raises the
question of why we
would ever leave the
state of nature? Why
not anarchy?
Do we find any
problems lurking in the
state of nature????