Philosophy 2070E Lecture Notes - Thought Experiment, Fiduciary

24 views9 pages
Published on 9 Nov 2011
School
Western University
Department
Philosophy
Course
Philosophy 2070E
Professor
Locke Lecture Notes
Recap on Hobbes: Law of Nature for Hobbes is a dictate of reason, prescribing a general
course of action that each person must take towards their own preservation… In other
words, its content is about others only indirectly… its direct content concerns what is
rational for the particular individual, to whom the dictate is directed. Law of Nature as
dictates of Reason here can be understood as prudence… This is why such laws of nature,
as dictates of reason, do not oblige absolutely, for the law of nature or reason cannot
prescribe a course of action tending towards one’s destruction.
Recall, Hobbes’ general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far
as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all
helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and
fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of
the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
Right, for Hobbes concerns the liberty or freedom to do a particular action. Recall, in the
state of nature, all persons have a right to all things that they judge as necessary for their
preservation. It is very important to note, rights for Hobbes, in the state of nature, do not
have any corresponding duties of others. Duty, as we normally understand it, implies an
obligation to refrain from doing something or obligation to do something (negative and
positive duty). Obligation, as such, implies the lack of liberty or freedom following from
another’s right. But, for Hobbes, since everyone has a right to everything, it does not
make sense to speak of duties.
Law of Nature for Locke is also a dictate of reason… but unlike Hobbes, Locke thinks
that the content of the law of nature directly concerns others: no one ought to harm
another in his life, health, liberty or possessions (ch2/sec6):
a) Law of Nature follows from natural equality among persons
b) Asserts the natural rights of persons, provided by the law of nature
c) Asserts the natural limit to liberty, constrained or bound by the law of nature
Natural Equality: Moral equality of persons: should be equal amongst one another
without subordination or subjection (ch2/sec4)
a) God has made everyone equal, i.e. not appointed any person natural sovereign over
another. We have no natural superiors on earth. Of course, we are all the property of
God… we have, it seems, a caretaker relationship with ourselves or our own person, and
1 | P a g e
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 9 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
insofar as possible, i.e. insofar as there is no competition for preservation or explicit
declaration of conflict, we each have a caretaker relationship with each other.
Compare Hobbes notion of equality: descriptive account of the relatively equal statuses
of our mental and physical capacities.
Locke’s notion of equality is normative (action guiding or prescriptive): it is a
normative claim about our moral status as persons, and our right thereof
Natural Rights: life, health, liberty, and possessions (which Locke consigns under the
general term property, but sometimes when he speaks of property, he is referring to
possessions)… corresponding duties of others.
a) The Law of Nature both provides right of persons, but also corresponding duties of
others
Again Compare Hobbes notion of right: right to all things, right to do anything and take
any means necessary for self preservation.
Locke’s notions of rights is more robust, in that every right has a corresponding duty, but
more constrained, in that because we have duties corresponding to other’s rights, our
rights are thus limited to a) what we have a natural right to, and b) those what we are not
obliged to do or refrain from doing
Natural Liberty: our liberty or freedom is constrained by the law of nature: Regarding
the natural liberty we find in the state of nature, “But though this be a state of liberty,
yet it is not a state of license: though man in that state have an uncontrollable
liberty to dispose of his person or possessions (to use himself and his possessions in
any manner he or she see fit), yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as
any creature in his possession” (ch2/sec6)
We do not have the freedom or liberty to destroy ourselves or others, or deprive others of
their rights, as our person nor other persons belong to us…
a) Freedom for Locke is a positive conception of freedom: One has the liberty to do what
the Law of Nature allows. Insofar as one is acting according to the Law of Nature,
according to reason, one is acting freely.
Compare Hobbes’ notion of liberty, which is a negative conception: one is free insofar as
there are no external constraints or impediments preventing one from exercising their
natural power.
An example to distinguish the two: the taking of the possessions of another
For Hobbes, one is free to do so, insofar as one is able to do so. Restraint comes in the
form of a physical response from those whom one is trying to deprive. For Locke, one is
not free to do so. Restraint comes in the form of normative relationship between persons.
2 | P a g e
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 9 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in
It is not an impediment or limitation upon one’s freedom denying the right to take
another’s possessions, for one is not free or does not have the liberty to take another’s
possessions.
How do we make sense of the act of depriving another of their property, for it appears to
be a freely chosen act? It seems that one is free insofar as one is rational – to transgress
the law of nature is both to act against reason and against one’s humanity – as such, one
can be treated as one would treat a lion or wolf…
State of Nature: Condition by which “Men living according to reason, without a
common superior on earth, to judge between them, is properly the state of nature.”
(ch2/sec19)
We are not merely to understand this condition as a hypothetical or thought experiment.
For Locke, the state of nature is the conceptualization of the relationship between persons
whom do not have common power between them to decide controversies… The state of
nature has existed, and can exist between persons. Like Hobbes, with Locke’s
conception, we can appeal to the natural condition whereby we can both a) determine the
relationship between person absent mutual power to arbitrate conflict and render laws and
b) to provide an account of justification of political power…
Compare Hobbes: The state of nature is akin to a state of war – perpetual state of conflict
Locke: Condition of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation (ch3/sec19) …
whereby persons live according to reason, according to their acknowledgment of the
equal status of persons and the rights and obligations thereof
But Locke was not so naïve to think that there will be no transgressions of the law of
nature… Thus, and in contrast to Hobbes, Locke distinguishes between the state of nature
and a state of war, wherein the latter is an actual declaration of hostility, via act or
otherwise that differentiates from or deviates from the state of nature
Locke on the Execution or Enforcement of the Law of Nature:
For Hobbes, recall, the laws of nature are ineffective in the state of nature. For Locke, the
notion that we are bound by the laws but the laws are ineffective would make the law of
nature be in vain, thus there must be enforcement of the laws of nature in the state of
nature (ch2/sec7)
As no one is the natural superior of another, it must follow that everyone has a right to
enforce the law of nature, whether or not one is the victim of the transgression…
3 | P a g e
Unlock document

This preview shows pages 1-3 of the document.
Unlock all 9 pages and 3 million more documents.

Already have an account? Log in

Document Summary

The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves. Right, for hobbes concerns the liberty or freedom to do a particular action. Recall, in the state of nature, all persons have a right to all things that they judge as necessary for their preservation. It is very important to note, rights for hobbes, in the state of nature, do not have any corresponding duties of others. Duty, as we normally understand it, implies an obligation to refrain from doing something or obligation to do something (negative and positive duty). Obligation, as such, implies the lack of liberty or freedom following from another"s right. But, for hobbes, since everyone has a right to everything, it does not make sense to speak of duties.

Get OneClass Grade+

Unlimited access to all notes and study guides.

YearlyMost Popular
75% OFF
$9.98/m
Monthly
$39.98/m
Single doc
$39.98

or

You will be charged $119.76 upfront and auto renewed at the end of each cycle. You may cancel anytime under Payment Settings. For more information, see our Terms and Privacy.
Payments are encrypted using 256-bit SSL. Powered by Stripe.