The Concept Of Property In The Philosophy Of The Enlightenment - Essay Example

The concept of property in the philosophy of the Enlightenment (after John Locke's "Second treatise of government", Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Social contract", and Thomas Hobbes' "De Give (The Citizen)") 2007 Outline: A) Introduction B) The concept of property in the Age of Enlightenment 1) John Locke's views on property 2) The concept of property in Jean Jacques Rousseau's works 3) Philosophical views of Thomas Hobbes and the concept of property C) How would Karl Marx relate to the views on property of the philosophers of the Enlightenment Foreword: the present report deals with the ideas of property put forward by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean Jacque Rousseau - the representatives of the Age of Enlightenment. All of them considered property necessary for social life of humans, and described it as s one of the inalienable rights that cannot be violated. However, their concepts of property, as well as their understanding of this notion, differ in some aspects. A) Introduction John Locke, Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau lived and wrote their works during the Age of Enlightenment, and all of them produced a considerable influence on the development of democracy. Writing about an ideal state, they emphasized the importance of personal liberties, one of which was property right. B) The concept of property in the Age of Enlightenment 1) John Locke's views on property John Locke is considered one of the precursors of American democracy, and his political concept is based predominantly upon social contract theory and natural rights of human beings. He believed that the state should have legislative and executive power, as well as the right to decide whether to start military actions or not (the right for war and peace). However, it is very important that he refused to grant the state with the right to handle people's lives and property: according to J. Locke, these two were the natural rights of people, and they could only be restricted if the security of other citizens was endangered. In Locke's ideal state, therefore, the government could not take property from people, nor could it even collect different kinds of payments without previous agreement of the majority of people (or their representatives) to pay this money. Talking of freedom as the natural condition for all the citizens of his ideal state, John Locke stated that the main natural right of people (the right of property) should necessarily be secured using legal regulations, so that no conflicts arise. Locke believed that the political society is formed by means of concluding a "social contract", and as a result the government is formed which has to be responsible to people: "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it." (Chapter IV (Of Liberty), Section 22) All in all, John Locke's idea of state was concluding this social contract that would restrict the freedom of people to a certain extent, but the right of property was viewed by him as the right that can by no means be violated. J. Locke believed that the reason why some people have more property than others is because though all children are born equal, in the process of development some of them get more knowledge and prove to have better abilities, and therefore the result of this labour (property) should not be alienated from its owner. it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it. So that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. (Chapter V (On Property), Section 51) Locke names labour the source of property, and that is how he disputes the division of society into classes. He is sure that everyone can become rich and prosperous thanks to him own labouriousness. According to the philosopher, in the initial state of nature people used to live in, everybody could have as much property as he wanted, and so one of the most important natural rights is that of having property. The very concept of freedom is viewed by Locke mainly as freedom to gain property, and also be involved into the system of money-commodity relations. And vice versa, personal freedom is the property in itself, as depriving a person of his freedom means depriving him of his "potential" property that he could gain if he were free. That is why, for Locke the concepts of freedom and property are almost synonymous. Locke even defends the right of everyone to kill a thief: This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force [he] has put himself into a state of war with me" (Chapter III (Of the State of War), Section 18) Thus, for Locke an attempt to steal someone's property is practically the same as to try to kill a person. This crime, stated the philosopher, had to be punished by death. So, what is property for John Locke It means not less than freedom, since he claimed that a human being is free when he has the natural right to possess and be in command of his property. 2) The concept of property in Jean Jacques Rousseau's works Jean Jacques Rousseau's concept of property was somewhat different. His idea of an ideal state presupposed unlimited power of government, though this power had to be controlled by people, but people's particular rights were not specified. However, same as John Locke, Rousseau was sure that the right of property was the basis of a truly democratic society: The right of the first occupier, though more real than the right of the strongest, becomes a real right only when the right of property has already been established. Every man has naturally a right to everything he needs; but the positive act which makes him proprietor of one thing excludes him from everything else. Having his share, he ought to keep to it, and can have no further right against the community. This is why the right of the first occupier, which in the state of nature is so weak, claims the respect of every man in civil society. In this right we are respecting not so much what belongs to another as what does not belong to ourselves. (Book I, Chapter 9 (Real Property)) It is easy to see the difference in Rousseau's approach to property from that of Locke: Rousseau did not associate freedom with property, but mainly with a personal will. Of course he did not rejects the importance property; however he did not consider it the most important of all personal liberties, and propagated equality of all citizens of his ideal state in terms of property. Not disputing the very idea of property as a necessary precondition for personal freedom, he still came to a conclusion that in order not to do any harm, people should possess enough property but not more than that. Possessing excessive property was for Rousseau the reason why people could lose their freedom: the rich people, claimed the philosopher, "cheated" the poor ones into some contract dealing with the formation of a state, and actually enslaved them, having deprived them of their freedom. That was the reason why for Rousseau, all political systems seemed abnormal - they were based entirely on the distribution of the land property. Describing different political systems and kinds of government (democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy), he claims there is no ideal one. Therefore, though J.-J. Rousseau saw the root of inequality in private property, he still did not deny its necessity, and considered it one of the basics of social life. 3) Philosophical views of Thomas Hobbes and the concept of property Thomas Hobbes, like the rest of the philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment, attempted to explain how and why the "natural state" of people where they all had been equal changed into inequality; and, same as the rest of the representatives of the epoch he was sure this event was connected with property. For T. Hobbes, property was the key concept of political philosophy: "my first enquiry was to be from whence it proceeded, that any man should call any thing rather his Owne, than another mans". (Hobbes 1651) Same as J. Locke, T. Hobbes believed that property evolved as a result of labour, and since labour was viewed as the innate feature of human beings, property was declared by Hobbes a most natural right of every person. Thomas Hobbes derives the concept of individual freedom from the right of property, similar to John Locke. For him, freedom of a person is the freedom of his desire to possess, acquire material things. Since all people are equal in their abilities and desires, i.e. all people are free, he rejects the very possibility for a social life of humans who are in the "state of nature": Nature hath given to every one a right to all. That is it was lawfull for every man in the bare state of nature, or before such time as men had engag'd themselves by any Covenants, or Bonds, to doe what hee would, and against whom he thought fit, and to possesse, use, and enjoy all what he would, or could get. (Hobbes 1651) Possessing freedom, and therefore being free to wish to possess any object, each of them is unable to put up with the existing differentiation of the material world into "his" property and "someone else's" property. That is why, this discrepancy results in a battle between an individual and the rest of the humanity. it was the least benefit for men thus to have a common Right to all things; for the effects of this Right are the same, almost, as if there had been no Right at all; for although any man might say of every thing, This is mine, yet could he not enjoy it, by reason of his Neighbour, who having equall Right, and equall power, would pretend the same thing to be his. (Hobbes 1651) In "the state of nature", a human being is compared by T. Hobbes to a runner whose aim is to beat all his competitors in the fight for property. Consequently, the state is, for Hobbes, a social institution that creates the law and ensures personal freedom and liberties of each citizen, but on the basis of respect to the rights of other people. The state is meant to guard the property of each of it's citizens, and this, according to T. Hobbes, is worth losing a part of other personal liberties for the sake of creating a state: Now union thus made is called a City, or civill society, and also a civill Person; for when there is one will of all men, it is to be esteemed for one Person, and by the word (one) it is to be knowne, and distinguished from all particular men, as having its own Rights and properties. (Hobbes 1651) Hobbes also claimed that the laws of property should be fully regulated by the sovereign, as the state of nature does not have the concept of property as such. C) How would Karl Marx relate to the views on property of the philosophers of the Enlightenment Whereas for all the philosophers whose views we considered in the paper property was one of the main things a society (and, above all, a state) is based upon, for Karl Marx, the concept of property was of secondary character, and the main thing was the development of production forces. Marx claimed that in every society, very important was the property in means of production. K. Marx derives the very concept of equality from the economic conditions of the contemporary society, and, similar to Rousseau, claims that property is a root of inequity and subdivision of the society into classes. Works Cited 1. Hobbes, Thomas. De Cive (The Citizen): Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society, 1651. Retrieved on February 20. 2007 from: 2. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. E-text from Project Guttenberg. Digitized by Dave Gowan. January, 2005. Retrieved on February 19, 2007 from: 3. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. Rendered into HTML on April 21, 2000 by Steve Thomas for The University of Adelaide Library Electronic Texts Collection. Retrieved on February 19, 2007 from: Read More