John Locke: Life, Liberty and (if you're American) the Pursuit of Happiness

Our third HCJ lecture focused mainly on John Locke’s ‘Essay Concerning Human Understanding’ and his thoughts on Social Contracts. This was also linked with Hobbes and his work ‘Leviathan’, both of which were written following the aftermath of the English civil war, as well as being influenced by this period of political upheaval. However both doctrines disagree with each other more often than they are in accord.

Locke and Hobbes both wanted the monarchy to be rid of it’s ‘mystical quality’, meaning that Kings should stop claiming to have divine power and authority. Locke attacks this point, especially in reference to Sir Robert Filmer, whose work ‘Patriarcha’ deals with the hereditary principle that Adam was given Kingly authority by God, and therefore all subsequent monarchs are heirs to Adam’s Authority. Locke tore Filmer’s arguments apart following simple logical reasoning that if this hereditary power were so important, it would make no difference to be born male or female (but most monarchies are heavily misogynistic). Not to mention that surely Adam would only have one true heir, and therefore all other kings are usurpers. From this basis Locke decides that a system of  hereditary leadership is unjust and a people should be given the ability to choose who is to lead them.

Both men talk about a ‘State of Nature’ which could have existed before any form of government. Hobbes theorised that in such a world, people would act on their passions, would have no inhibitions, and would have a right to everything and anything he wanted. This would lead to wars following an every man for himself policy. He claim life in that time would be
“Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. Therefore, the people would choose to give absolute power to a leader who would hold their natural rights for the sake of protection. Locke opposes this argument, saying that exchanging all rights for personal safety with an absolute ruler will not work in the long run. He has a very different impression of this State of Nature: Everyone has natural freedom, but will follow natural laws governed by a set of morals known by everyone intuitively as they are “interwoven in the constitution of the human mind”. He goes on to state that these morals would be discovered by human reason, but were originally given by God (He is lovely isn’t he, that God). Not only does reason give us moral guidelines however, oh no, Locke states that there is nothing in our brain, no knowledge or ideas, that don’t come from experience. This flies directly against Cartesian thinking and no doubt caused a ruckus in their camp. But then when you present any kind of dogmatic thinking with other reasoning, you will no doubt receive a backlash of some kind.

As part of Locke’s Social Contract he maintained that civil government is the result of a contract and should be in no way hindered by any divine authority. The difference in Locke’s Contract compared to others (especially Hobbes, who claimed that once established, the government had complete authority to the point of tyranny, and the people had no right to rebellion) is that the sovereign was party to the contract and can be rightly resisted if it fails to keep its part of the bargain. Parallel to this is the natural right of every man to revolt against a government that ceases to respect the law.

A subject which Locke seems to be obsessed with is the concept of property. He claims that the formation of all governments was to protect the property of all within it. One of his main tenets is that every man has a right to Life, Liberty, and Property (on the assumption that the second two don’t impeach on another’s). The American constitution quotes this when they say that every man has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. His proposed concept of Government is one made by consent from the majority of people populating it, and limited by laws (that effect everyone), and powers used mainly for the protection of property. This is taken to such an extent that he presents an example of a soldier in an army. If this soldier breaks any rules or oaths required of him, he may be disciplined . But not by the taking of his property. Locke considers that to be a terrible act. He may however be punished in so far as his body may be punished, by flogging for example. I’m sure that would certainly be the much preferred choice.

Locke’s theories on Human Understanding are a bold innovation compared to pretty much every philosopher since Plato, as he uses empiricist theory to state that there is no such thing as innate ideas, and all knowledge comes from sensation, and the perception of the operation of the mind. Locke’s empiricist teachings directly contradict those of Plato, down to and including Descartes and his contemporary Leibniz. He was wholly against ‘Innate Ideas’ as described by Plato and Descartes, which  he discusses in great detail in the first book of his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He claims that rather than giving us a vague blueprint; God gave us the ability to discover knowledge and morality through reasoning.

It is interesting to note that Locke, a believer in God (though it is difficult to name his exact religion), was of the opinion that religion should never mix with politics. One could say that this is obvious concerning his thoughts on hereditary divinity, and perhaps he simply saw the effect religion can have on an otherwise sensible constitution of government. I certainly wonder what he would think of the situation in America, where it’s practically anathema to admit to being an atheist, and in some cases to being anything other than Christian. I think that Locke simply saw how chaotic things can become when you mix fundamentalism with power. To quote Douglas Adams:
“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves into a position of power should on no account be allowed to do the job”.
I'm not 100% sure of how relevant that is but I have put up 7 posts and haven't quoted Adams in any of them, so I think I owe him a shout out.