Abstract
This chapter treats all the rest of the main possible criticism against the validity of the main source whose responsibilities to nature are proposed in this book while the rest of the arguments against the validity of his responsibilities are invalidated one by one in Chapter 9. It treats those arguments again, one by one while rebutting those arguments with citations from the main source with corroboration by modern authors. It specifically treats Locke’s repeated theological references to God, the misunderstanding of the literal labour-mixing theory, the notion of self-ownership as possible argument for slavery interpretation and the argument of Natural law: ‘nonsense upon stilts’—utilitarian view of natural rights. It further deals with other possible objections to Locke’s labour theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
This is highly supported by Simmons (1992, 10–12, 45–46). See other modern supporters below.
- 3.
Even Dunn, who argues that Locke’s theological basis of argumentation is the most important basis for his arguments (Dunn 1969, 68, 187–188), claims that Locke’s use of reason is an additional basis of argumentation and says that Locke demonstrates ‘a persistent attempt to establish a rationalist position, worked out in close relationship with natural theology ’ (emphasis added); Dunn (1969, 188). In a way thus, Dunn also recognizes that Locke gives different arguments also based on reason alone.
- 4.
That is, in his Second Treatise, Locke demonstrates that Adam, as a symbol of God’s perfect creation, represents the full possession of reason. ‘Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason’ (emphasis added) (Locke II, 56; see also Locke II, 57).
Further, Locke writes, ‘our Reason leads us to the Knowledge of this certain and evident Truth, That there is an eternal, most powerful, and most knowing Being’ (emphasis added) (Locke 1689, Human Understanding, Bk. IV, Ch. 10, Para. 6).
Moreover, in his text on Human Understanding, Locke argues that we are bound by divine law based on ‘The Idea of a supreme Being, infinite in Power, Goodness, and Wisdom , whose Workmanship we are, and on whom we depend; and the idea of ourselves, as understanding rational Beings’ (emphasis added) (Locke 1689, Human Understanding, Bk. IV, Ch. 13, Para. 3).
Ashcraft confirms that ‘Locke is drawn into asserting that God is both reasonable and good, and hence men are able to adhere to the precepts of natural law not only as respecters of power but also as moral agents’ (Ashcraft 1968, 903).
Dunn goes as far as saying that for Locke: ‘God is determined by what is best’… ‘because his essence is Reason…God is actually reasonable because he is himself pure Reason’ (emphasis added) (cited in Dunn 1969, 193–194, emphasis added). Dunn (1969) thus says that for Locke, God represents pure reason without the corrupted passions of men.
- 5.
- 6.
Moral Monism in Environmental Ethics is defended in Callicott (1999, 171–183).
References
Ashcraft, Richard. ‘Locke’s State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?’ American Political Science Review 62, no. 3 (1968): 898–915.
Ashcraft, Richard. Revolutionary Politics and Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.
Becker, Carl L. Property Rights: Philosophic Foundations. London: Free Press, 1977.
Bentham, Jeremy. Anarchical Fallacies, Being an Examination of the Declarations of Rights Issued During the French Revolution. The Works of Jeremy Bentham, Vol. 2 of 11. Edinburgh: William Tait, 1843. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxtandstaticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1921andchapter=114226andlayout=htmlandItemid=27.
Callicott, J. Baird. Beyond the Land Ethic: More Essays in Environmental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.
Colman, John. John Locke’s Moral Philosophy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1983.
Day, J. Patrick. ‘Locke on Property.’ The Philosophical Quarterly 16, no. 64 (1966): 207–220.
Donald, J. A. ‘Natural Law and Natural Rights.’ 2011. http://jim.com/rights.html.
Dunn, John. The Political Thought of John Locke: An Historical Account of the Argument of the ‘Two Treatises of Government.’ Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.
Forde, Steven. ‘What Does Locke Expect Us to Know?’ The Review of Politics 68, no. 2 (2006): 232–258.
Grotius, Hugo. De jure belli ac pacis libri tres [The Law of War and Peace]. Translated by A. C. Campbell. London: Clarendon Press, 1625. http://www.constitution.org/gro/djbp.htm.
Hiller Marguerat, Shelly. ‘John Locke’s Concept of Property and His Natural Law Limits Based on Reason.’ Doctorate thesis, Geneva University Archives Online, Geneva, 2014. https://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:36849.
Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978.
Locke, John. Two treatises of government, 1764 ed. London Printed MDCLXXXVIIII, 1690. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtreat.txt, https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/politics/locke/ch00.htm.
Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. 1975 ed. Edited by P. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1689. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke1/contents2.html.
Mill, J. S. ‘Remarks on Bentham’s Philosophy. Essays on Ethics, Religion and Society.’ In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Vol. 10. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1833. http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxtandstaticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=241andchapter=21491andlayout=htmlandItemid=27.
Nozick, Robert. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
Pangle, Thomas L. The Spirit of Modern Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of John Locke. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.
Parry, Geraint. John Locke. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1978.
Pierson, Christopher. Just Property, a History in the Latin West Volume One: Wealth, Virtue, and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Plamenatz, John Petrov. Man and Society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
Rapaczynski, Andrzej. Nature and Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques. What is the Origin of Inequality Among Men, and It Is Authorized by Natural Law. Translated by G. D. H. Cole, 1754. http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_02.htm.
Ryan, Alan. Property and Political Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984.
Sabine, George Holland. A History of Political Theory. New York: Henry Holt, 1937.
Sartorius, Rolf. ‘Persons and Property.’ In Utility and Rights, edited by Raymond Gillespie Prey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984.
Simmons, A. John. The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Strauss, Leo. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953.
Tully, James. A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.
Waldron, Jeremy. ‘Two Worries About Mixing One’s Labour.’ The Philosophical Quarterly 33, no. 130 (1983): 37–44.
Waldron, Jeremy. The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Waldron, Jeremy. God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations of John Locke’s Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hiller Marguerat, S. (2019). Locke’s Relevance to all Scholars in all Times. In: Private Property Rights and the Environment. Palgrave Studies in Environmental Policy and Regulation . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97900-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97900-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-97899-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-97900-7
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)