Stanley Fish's Critique of John Locke's Concept of Toleration - Essay Example

? Stanley Fish's Critique of John Locke's Concept Of Toleration Locke’s detailed his thoughts on religion and politics in his letter titled Letter Concerning Toleration. Through this letter he brings forth a number of arguments that are intended to ascertain the proper spheres of religion and politics. His basic argument is that government should not forcefully compel people to follow religion; he further states that religious units are free associations that have no authority to compel its followers or those outside their congregation. One frequent line that Locke utilizes is predominantly religious. Locke argues that there is no religious support for use of coercion, and thus it should not be used to bring persons to salvation. He also often cites his concerns on the level of hypocrisy, he points out that those persons who are so quick to persecute are themselves ignorant of the most grievous sins that happen around them. These transgressions represent a much greater threat eternally than do the sins that they seek to persecute. In the letter, Locke cites many more but similar religious arguments; he further proceeds to provide three reasons which he believes should provide enough grounds for preventing the state to coerce people into adopting specified religious beliefs. First, he identifies that the concern for human soul has not been bequeathed to the magistrate by either God or humans. This argument borders on the view presented in the Two Treatises to confound the natural freedom and sameness of humans. There is no authority within the Bible that requires the magistrate to commit people to the actual faith and that persons should not agree to such an idea for the state as it is impossible for human, at will, to accept as true what the magistrate identifies as true .Their faith is founded on that they consider as true and not really what they wish. Locke’s second argument holds that as the government’s power is yielded in its force, and religion is primarily about free choice founded on inward persuasion of the mind, then it follows that force cannot be used to compel people to follow religion. The third and last argument identifies that even though human’s state of mind could be altered through force, a state where all joined the magistrate’s religion would not bring additional people to the true religion. This is due to the fact that most magistrates ascribe to false religions. Locke’s view on religion and the state has been respected for a favorable period of time, it is not also uncommon to see modern person relating with the very elements of his thoughts. This should not be taken to mean that his argument as detailed in the Letter Concerning Toleration is flawed but it means that just like in every philosophical work owner’s prejudices find their way into the argument (Fish, 1997:2255). This is often exposed by a through look at the point’s advanced and constructive criticism of the same allowing a subsequent reader to identify the areas of weakness. Such is the case with Locke’s arguments, a number of modern thinkers have criticized his argument bringing out weaknesses that seem to weaken the argument. In the following part, this study focuses on such criticism as advanced by Stanley Fish. Fish’s criticism titled Mission impossible: Settling the just bounds between the church and the state seeks to reconcile the two, religion and state a task which appears impossible under John Locke’s restoration argument. Fish’s argument starts with Locke’s assertion at the beginning of his letter that every church is orthodox to itself and that in a situation where there emerge conflicts between these orthodoxies there would be no one on earth able of moderating between them. In such situations Locke insists on the need for tolerance, however, the problem is that if this is allowed to regulate behavior then the role of government as a regulator of wrongful conduct would be curtailed by those who cite that their wrongful conduct is informed by their religious faith. Locke responds to this restriction by declining to stretch tolerance to dogmas which apparently weaken the bases of society, and are therefore criticized by the entire human race. Fish finds this contradictory, as the argument that every church is orthodox to itself is weakened by the assertion that some dogmas face criticism by the entire human race. This is because the latter statement presupposes the neutral ground which is denounced by the statement that every church is orthodox to itself (Fish, 1997: 2255). Every church is orthodox to itself Locke states in his letter “For every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical. Whatsoever any church believes, it believes to be true: and the contrary thereupon it pronounces to be error… ”(Fish, 1997: 2258) This statement continues to point that the issues occurring between these orthodox churches can only be settled by a Supreme judge of all men brings into focus a few things. Fish identifies that one such issue is the fact that if one holds a certain belief any other believe dissimilar to this is in error. Moreover, persons considered to be in error under this situation are equally armed with counter accusations and loads of evidence to support their positions. And since anyone who may aspire to resolve such stand off will be a believer, he will be prejudiced by some argument which he would consider particularly weighty, at the end of the day no single judgment would be considered impartial as to be recommended to all parties. Given these prejudices and challenges in having an impartial ruling question then arises on how to arrive to the ultimate resolution. Locke suggests that the only way to avoid these struggles and bustles is to isolate the issue of religion from public debate and leave their resolution to the Supreme Judge. Consequently, man should adopt a policy of toleration towards opposing beliefs. At the end of the day, Locke tries to alienate the issues of religion from the State. Noting that, religion is an internal battle which every man should be left to wage alone. Therefore, no church should try to affiliate itself with a civil authority with the intentions of using such authority to compel people to its doctrines. Through these arguments Locke is satisfied that he had established the right goals, and was able to identify the right position for the civil governed and the religion. However, Fish finds this argument wanting observing that the crux of Locke’s argument is its major undoing. Fish poses the question, if toleration identifies the true church and the responsibility of the civil magistrate, then is not likely that we will have a religion lacking in content as every dogma will be deemed okay as every one believes in it. Furthermore, won’t the civil authority be restricted from dealing with behavior considered wrongful as far as those concerned cite that they are prompted to act by their faith (Fish, 1997: 2260). These in turn translate to two other crucial questions, can religion exist without belief and the second question seeks to identify the extent to which the functions of the church should extend before intervention by the state given that the state is mandated with securing order and stability. Given that Locke identified tolerance as the important element that will keep the state at bay, Fish then seeks to understand how this can be treated without weakening the basis for, and justification of the decision the church and the state must make in order to achieve their responsibilities. According to Fish, the response given by Locke to this question is inadequate, Locke holds that one should tolerate as much as one would as far as the basic level of the enterprise, either spiritual or civil, is not crossed. He continues that every individual should identify a basic level of obligation that allows believers to exercise their faith within bounds and allows the magistrate a measure to establish when those limits are crossed and the mandate to enforce them. Fish points out that establishing limits solves the problem brought about by the strong form of toleration. However, Fish is concerned that this very solution comes with a problem of its own; this is the means of justifying the stigmatizing of the dogmas and actions that upset the identified limits. Fish believes that upsetting the identified limits is unjustifiable, but he points out that these can be justified through an act of power by those who set the limits confounding that any form of tolerance must be constituted by a bigoted act of exclusion (Fish, 1997: 2261). Those who constitute such a system will do all they can to shun facing the struggle that inaugurates it and will go to any length come up with ways of masking it, even from themselves. In regard to setting of limits and coexistence of mankind Locke agrees that there is a role for the magistrate. The magistrate should look out for “those opinions that are contrary to human society or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society”. Locke cites that there are in deed extremities that should not be tolerated for the preservation of civil society, this establishes some form of common ground. Common ground in that, all churches irrespective of their different orthodoxies agree that these opinions cannot be left to flourish, but Locke again notes that no sane person would ascribe to such views as they are condemned by the entire race of humankind. To this Fish seeks to understand in a world where different orthodoxies exist how do you get to the judgment of all mankind? Fish identifies that judgment of all mankind can be reached if there was common ground. Common ground that identifies the limits of everybody, he continues to say that this is not easy to achieve, contrary to Locke’s view. Fish notes that the most likely scenario is that where there lacks an established common ground due to the fact that every church is orthodox to itself. The absence of a common ground commences a search for a form of governance that will welcome diversity. This search commences and ends with coming up with a common ground, what one will have done is promoting one orthodoxy to the position of common sense and labeled as dangerous any other orthodoxies whose level of common sense is different from the chosen one. Fish continues the analysis on the whole issue of common ground by indicating that this is a resultant of a situation where one assumes the normative status of his own judgment and terms the judgment of others (opponents) as inhuman or unreasonable. Fish ultimately notes that the whole idea of common ground is ironical; this is because the idea to hold to common ground which is touted as one way of avoiding politics and its continual conflicts is itself a supremely political move. Fish clarifies that he does not propose that the idea of common good be discarded just because it is political as opposed to being a moral or philosophical. Rather, he acknowledges that Locke and his proponents were correct in stating that in absence of common ground it is impossible to have a state and laws. But, Fish continues, they are mistaken in insinuating that common ground can be established by setting a morality bar so high than every one would acquiesce to its guidelines or in a level so low that its precepts would cross no man’s ambition, profit or lust (Fish, 1997: 2265). Rather, common ground is what results when one party gets the mandate to determine what constitutes appropriate conduct. In summary, Fish identifies that it is impossible to alienate politics and religion. This is because each has a distinctive role in society and none of these roles can be ignored if at all the society is to function properly. He however, seems to agree that religion should not be forced but again man should not be let alone to decide what to do. He conquers with Locke that there is need to have a common ground, but again he differs in the way this one should come to be noting that it cannot exist in isolation with politics as its existence symbolizes politics. Fish’s main contention is that the church must coexist with the state as the state must carry out its role as regulator; he is opposed to the idea of tolerance as the limit to this will differ from one individual to the other. Besides, Locke’s idea that all are sane is not a representation of the actual situation as evident in real life. References FISH, S. (1997). Mission Impossible: Settling The Just Bounds Between Church And State. Columbia Law Review Vol. 97 No. 8 , 2255-2272. Read More