Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke Second Lecture; February 9, 2010 family rule is natural; why wouldn't that be the model for politics? not only natural, but religion likes it this is a difficult concept for Locke to deal with holds the potential for eroding what he is trying to do he is trying to base a regime on freedom and equality of nature if paternal rule is natural, out goes equality and freedom this is an argument that he has to thwart runs against what he is trying to achieve answers this argument with the thought that children are born to this state, but not in it they are not capable of being free and equal human beings until they reach the age of reason "When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then somebody else must guide him who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty" (33). one is not truly in a state of nature, free and equal, until one reaches the age of reason law of nature governs state of nature cant understand law of nature if you don t have reason "Thus we are born free as we are born rational, not that we have actually the exercise of either; age that brings one brings with the other, too" (34-35). that takes care of the problem of paternal authority except now Locke has worked himself into a position where the family has lost authority/power "...this freedom exempts not a song from that honor which he ought, by the law of God and nature, to pay his parents" (37). from this obligation no state, no freedom, can absolve children (38) whatever authority family has is based on honor or religious sanction or on reason not enough for him to be assured the family will be able to maintain itself as an authoritative unit this is a problem because according to Locke families are absolutely necessary why are families necessary? this is made explicit on page 45-46, paragraph 80 that is marriage and the family according to Locke neither the word nor the concept of love has anything to do with it it is a very cold view of marriage the family is a necessary economic relationship and a political linchpin (holds stuff together) much in the spirit of other political philosophers as seeing the family as a main organizing mechanism Locke is not about to give up the family as the basis of power but his own logic has greatly contributed to eroding the natural basis of paternal power since honor/religious law/reason are not enough to maintain family, poses another situation "...this is the power men generally have to bestow their estates on those who please them best; the possession of the father being the expectation and inheritance of the children" (41) asserts sarcastically and in an understated way his main point: this is no small tie on the obedience of children" Locke gives back to the family a good deal of the power he took away in defending his concept of nature
family is a central economic relationship humans are very self-interested in economic terms this gives the father a great deal of authority and leverage over the children now Locke is ready to go on to the substance of his argument brings us to his consideration of political society needs to be distinguished from the state of nature does this on page 48-49 paragraph 87 good example of how the state of nature is not a historical concept clear evidence that Locke considers the state of nature an ahistorical concept not dependent on history or context "there and there only is political society where everyone of the members has quitted his natural power" there is a very real relationship to Hobbes in this statement this forms the community in civil society; the basis of the social contract this is what civil society is all about "to avoid and remedy the inconveniences which necessarily follow from every man being judged in his own case" (50:89) closing in on the central trunk of Locke closing in on his similarity to Hobbes also his differences from Hobbes in the state of nature, every person has two natural powers first: self-preservation, and the ability to preserve others within the law of nature second: the power to punish anyone who would go against these laws the power to punish others is what humans give up when he enters civil society but no matter where you are, self-preservation is never given up leads to problems: what if preservation of ones self is in conflict with preservation of society the natural power of individuals in the state of nature is transformed by a contract into the political powers of civil society Locke argues that this political power is always limited; must always be limited It is "evident that absolute monarchy, which by some men is counted the only government in the world, is indeed inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all" (50:90) no exceptions; if it's absolute monarchy, its no form of civil government at all if its not a form of civil government, its the state of nature or state of war political power must be limited because "no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse" (73:131) this reveals the basis of Locke's disagreement with Hobbes the remedy for the state of nature can never be the "unlimited" power of a Leviathan such a conclusion contradicts the premise that the fear of death/desire for self-preservation is the first principle of human action assuming Leviathan is not unlimited, it is not limited enough; it has too much power at least if you're in the state of nature, you are on equal terms Leviathan is not your equal; it can squash you like a fly; why put yourself in that position? bad enough you must watch out for your equals, but Leviathan is not your equal Locke says that Hobbes doesn't understand his own point Hobbes is being internally inconsistent
if the point is to protect yourself, don't protect yourself by giving over power to someone to kill you Hobbes says humans are bourgeois men they are determined and motivated by fear of violent death, and have reason if motivation is fear of violent death, what is going to make them conclude that they need to put themselves in a situation with something that has 1000x more power than they do? how does that square with self-preservation? if man is free and equal in the state of nature, why would he give up freedom to be controlled by society? the state of nature is "full of fears and continual dangers"; men are "driven" into society greater part of men "are no strict observers of equity and justice" thus the state of nature is very similar to one described by Hobbes development of money makes "fears and continual dangers" much more pressing take this constellation of facts, put them together, reveals problem problem: the state of nature that Locke sees is not so different than the one Hobbes sees Locke's state of nature are not as different as they seemed at first however, Locke insists that unlimited power is inconsistent with the nature and reason of man brings Locke to central fundamental question he poses; derives from Hobbes but Hobbes couldn't see has to be answered to come up with a viable political order; central issue in Locke question: how can you have a government that is simultaneously both limited in power, but can generate enough power to rule over our very passionate and dubious human nature? Hobbes did not ask that question political society, which is a construction/invention of human beings is not "standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community" (84:149) "acting according to its own nature"; society has a nature unto itself "the first fundamental natural law, which is to govern even the legislative, is the preservation of the society" (75:134); society has a kind of natural law unto itself the consequence of this natural law of society is that all of the rights of the members of the society must be consistent with the preservation of society (similar to the natural laws in Chapter 14 of Leviathan) power of society must be all inclusive, must be based on all page 49 paragraph 87 explains that in detail the power Locke is talking about is sweeping where law of majority rule/numbers/greater force comes into play every civil society is based on unanimity but unanimity cant be expected in other matters majority rule is only way for society to rule itself makes no sense if not based on human equality doctrine of majority rule does not mean a preference for one form of government over another just must be democratically based (73:132); very similar to Hobbes this is a very complex argument makes explicit distinction between society and government (119:211) it is the only place where he makes clear the difference between society and government significant because it comes in the chapter about dissolution but this distinction exists earlier on pages 73-74 point: only the social contract/formation of political society is based on unanimity supreme legislature is based on majority rule
why it is possible to say majority can retain power and create democracy, or entrust it to few, or to one (not absolute monarchy, but an elective/constitutional monarchy) but while society and government are distinguishable in theory, they cannot exist one without the other the distinction between society and government is real in a theoretical sense, but unreal and very likely irrelevant in a practical sense comparison between Locke and Hobbes: Locke is in favor of limited power of commonwealth Hobbes is in favor of total/inclusive/arbitrary power but their social contracts are not that dissimilar must ask of Locke what we asked Hobbes how is it possible to make sure the sovereign will obey the social contract more a problem for monarchy, but also possible in others come to a Hobbesian problem in Locke: found in Hobbes the solution was the monarch would be vulnerable to rebellion/overthrow if they do not obey the social contract Locke's answer: "the people shall be judge" (138:240) may sound like its leading to a Hobbesian answer in order to understand the problem here, must take up two topics distinguishable in Locke: the right of the people to judge and the right of the people to resist tyranny remember: whatever the right of resistance may be, it must be consistent with the preservation of society the preservation of human freedom and the preservation of society itself by society are both natural laws if they are natural laws, they come from reason preservation of human freedom society have approximately the same relationship as 2+2=4 Locke talks about executive prerogative right to disobey the law for the common good put into effect by the legislature because it cannot always be in session it cannot always handle all the issues that come up Locke points out that executive prerogative, when used wisely, is paradoxically a great threat to freedom gives people a false sense of security, can be demolished when a new/worse executive comes to power one thing to have FDR using it, another to have Richard Nixon Locke's teaching in regard to the right to resist tyranny is directed at rulers here are Locke's final observation: human begins are conservative, and won't revolt if they can avoid it "revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public affairs. Great mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong and inconvenient laws, and all the slips of human frailty will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur" (126:225). ruler who disobeys the social contract is rebelling against natural law, and against that which is political so that the ruler will be vulnerable to rebellion; own interest will be made insecure by acting as a tyrant then he goes a bit further, and we see his argument is very consistent with that of opening chapter in the state of nature, all men have the power to judge what is necessary for their self-preservation you cannot take that away from them; self-preservation is an involuntary movement; will always flinch cannot tell people what they need to do to preserve themselves Locke is arguing that the "ought" proceeds from the "is"
this is the way we are, wont be anything else what is the point of arguing that we should be anything else morality/ought proceeds from reality, what we are; or else it wont work similar to how you won't not flinch if someone hits you that is not reasonable; its the way we are in our deepest nature whole purpose of his book is to construct an order that reflects human nature that is what he is trying to do; tells us that cant suddenly say we re going to do stuff that s contrary to most basic human nature it cannot be; the ought proceeds from the is what ought to be must proceed from reality of who and what we are in the state of nature, all men have the power to judge what is necessary for their human nature they can never give up this power of judging what's necessary to preservation into hans of society it cannot be done, it is inalienable no human being can give up protection of themselves completely unto society what is the implication of that? what does that tell you about human nature? what does that tell by how Aristotle is wrong? what does that tell us we can expect from politics and what is silly to expect form politics?