JOHN LOCKE
John Locke’s first works were written at Oxford, namely the Two Tracts on Government in
1660-1662, and the Essays on the Law of Nature in Latin in 1664. In both these writings he argued
against religious toleration and denied consent as the basis of legitimate government. Locke
published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690. The same year saw the publication of his
famous philosophical work The Essay Concerning Human understanding. Locke’s other important
writings were the Letters Concerning Toleration and Some Thought Concerning Education.
The Two Treatises of Government consists of two parts- the first is the refutation of filmer and
the second, the more important of the two, is an inquiry into the ‘true original, extent and end of civil
government’. The work was ostensibly written to justify the glorious revolution of 1688. According to
William Ebenstein, Locke’s two treatises of government is often dismissed as a mere apology for the
victorious Whigs in the revolution of 1688. The two treatises exposed and defended freedom,
consent and property as coordinal principles of legitimate political power. Locke saw political power
as a trust, with the general community specifying its purposes an aims.
Limited Government.
In order to explain the origin of political power, Locke began with a description of the state of
nature which for him was one of perfect equality and freedom regulated by the laws of nature.
Locke’s description of state of nature was not as gloomy and pessimistic as Hobbe’s. The individual
in the Lockean state of nature was naturally free and become a political subject out of free choice.
The state of nature was not one of licence, for though the individual was free form any superior
power, he was subject to the laws of nature. From the laws of nature, individuals derived the natural
rights to life, liberty and property (Together known as Right to Property). The laws of nature known to
human beings through the power of reason, which directed them towards their proper interests.
Locke believes that man is a rational and a social creature capable of recognising and living
in a moral order. Thus Lockean men in the state of nature led a life of mutual assistance, good will
and preservation. Locke cannot conceive of human beings living together without some sort of
law and order, and in the state of nature it is the law of nature that rules. The law of nature through
the instrument of reason , defines what is right and wrong,; if a violation of the law occurs, the
execution of the penalty is in the state of nature, ‘put into every man’s hands, whereby every one
has right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation’ Locke
penetratingly notes that in the law of nature the injured party is authorised to the judge in his own
case and to execute the judgment against the culprit. In other words, in the Lockean state of nature,
there was no organised govt. which alone can protect and enforce the natural rights.
According to William Ebenstein, Lockean law of the state of nature is deficient in three
important points. First, it is not sufficiently clear. Second, there is no third party judge who has no
personal stake in disputes. Third, in the state of nature the injured party is not always strong
enough to execute the just sentence of the law. Thus the purpose of the social contract is to
establish organised law and orders so that the uncertainties of the state of nature will be replaced
by the predictability of known laws and impartial institutions. After society is set up by contract,
government is established, not by a contract, but by fiduciary trust.
For the three great lacks of the state of nature - the lack of a known law, of a known judge, of
a certain executive power – the three appropriate remedies would seem to be establishment of a
legislative, of a judicial, and of an executive authority. In civil society or the state, Locke notes the
existence of three powers, but they are not the above. There is first of all the legislative, which he
calls’ the supreme power of the commonwealth.’ The legislative power was supreme since it was
the representative of the people, having the power to make laws. Besides the legislative there was
an executive, usually one person, with the power to enforce the law. The executive which included
the judicial power, has to be always in session. It enjoyed prerogatives and was subordinate and
accountable to the legislature. The legislative and executive power had to be separate, thus preempting
Montesquieu’s theory separation of powers. The third power that Locke recognises is
what he calls the federative- the power that makes treaties, that which is concerned with the
country’s external relations. Locke realises the great importance of foreign policy, and knows that
its formulation, execution and control presents a very special kind of problem to constitutional states.
So this is all about this article.
John Locke’s first works were written at Oxford, namely the Two Tracts on Government in
1660-1662, and the Essays on the Law of Nature in Latin in 1664. In both these writings he argued
against religious toleration and denied consent as the basis of legitimate government. Locke
published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690. The same year saw the publication of his
famous philosophical work The Essay Concerning Human understanding. Locke’s other important
writings were the Letters Concerning Toleration and Some Thought Concerning Education.
The Two Treatises of Government consists of two parts- the first is the refutation of filmer and
the second, the more important of the two, is an inquiry into the ‘true original, extent and end of civil
government’. The work was ostensibly written to justify the glorious revolution of 1688. According to
William Ebenstein, Locke’s two treatises of government is often dismissed as a mere apology for the
victorious Whigs in the revolution of 1688. The two treatises exposed and defended freedom,
consent and property as coordinal principles of legitimate political power. Locke saw political power
as a trust, with the general community specifying its purposes an aims.
Limited Government.
In order to explain the origin of political power, Locke began with a description of the state of
nature which for him was one of perfect equality and freedom regulated by the laws of nature.
Locke’s description of state of nature was not as gloomy and pessimistic as Hobbe’s. The individual
in the Lockean state of nature was naturally free and become a political subject out of free choice.
The state of nature was not one of licence, for though the individual was free form any superior
power, he was subject to the laws of nature. From the laws of nature, individuals derived the natural
rights to life, liberty and property (Together known as Right to Property). The laws of nature known to
human beings through the power of reason, which directed them towards their proper interests.
Locke believes that man is a rational and a social creature capable of recognising and living
in a moral order. Thus Lockean men in the state of nature led a life of mutual assistance, good will
and preservation. Locke cannot conceive of human beings living together without some sort of
law and order, and in the state of nature it is the law of nature that rules. The law of nature through
the instrument of reason , defines what is right and wrong,; if a violation of the law occurs, the
execution of the penalty is in the state of nature, ‘put into every man’s hands, whereby every one
has right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation’ Locke
penetratingly notes that in the law of nature the injured party is authorised to the judge in his own
case and to execute the judgment against the culprit. In other words, in the Lockean state of nature,
there was no organised govt. which alone can protect and enforce the natural rights.
According to William Ebenstein, Lockean law of the state of nature is deficient in three
important points. First, it is not sufficiently clear. Second, there is no third party judge who has no
personal stake in disputes. Third, in the state of nature the injured party is not always strong
enough to execute the just sentence of the law. Thus the purpose of the social contract is to
establish organised law and orders so that the uncertainties of the state of nature will be replaced
by the predictability of known laws and impartial institutions. After society is set up by contract,
government is established, not by a contract, but by fiduciary trust.
For the three great lacks of the state of nature - the lack of a known law, of a known judge, of
a certain executive power – the three appropriate remedies would seem to be establishment of a
legislative, of a judicial, and of an executive authority. In civil society or the state, Locke notes the
existence of three powers, but they are not the above. There is first of all the legislative, which he
calls’ the supreme power of the commonwealth.’ The legislative power was supreme since it was
the representative of the people, having the power to make laws. Besides the legislative there was
an executive, usually one person, with the power to enforce the law. The executive which included
the judicial power, has to be always in session. It enjoyed prerogatives and was subordinate and
accountable to the legislature. The legislative and executive power had to be separate, thus preempting
Montesquieu’s theory separation of powers. The third power that Locke recognises is
what he calls the federative- the power that makes treaties, that which is concerned with the
country’s external relations. Locke realises the great importance of foreign policy, and knows that
its formulation, execution and control presents a very special kind of problem to constitutional states.
So this is all about this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment