The Issues of Political Governance - Essay Example

Philosophy- Locke 15 November 2005 Carefully explain and evaluate Locke's account of the origins and purpose of political governance, together withhow submission to common legislative, judicial and executive bodies can be consistent with the preservation of one's natural rights to life, liberty, equality and private property. The issues of political governance affect almost every person on the planet daily, and have been the subject of philosophical debate for millennia. The concept of not only submitting to another person's rule, but being punished for non-compliance, intuitively contradicts a right to autonomy that many people feel is natural. In order to understand a normative account of government, it is useful to understand the descriptive. By examining theories regarding the human state of nature, it is possible to set forth standards and norms by which people ought to live, including those relating to who should rule. This essay will analyze Locke's account of the origins and purpose of governance, with the aim of understanding how supporting the conflicting ideals of autonomy and authority might be remedied. Locke's state of nature comprises three elements; a state of perfect freedom, a state of equality and a state of natural law, which commands "no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions" (9). Accepting these elements is of fundamental importance in understanding the origins and role of government, but there are problems to be overcome. The natural law immediately limits the scope of the first, in that we do not have a perfect freedom to jeopardize another person's safety or invade their property. Secondly, if every person is equal, there is no natural claim to authority, which seems to conflict with the notion of obeying the law as set down by a government. The inclusion of the moral law in Locke's state of nature helps us to understand the motivations behind an argument for setting up a political governing body. We may all be equal on Earth, but the existence of a natural law which states we are duty bound not to harm others implies the existence of an objective morality as created by some other superior being, i.e. God. This theological aspect of Locke's account is important. It means that every individual is at liberty to behave in a way which fits within the parameters of a natural moral duty. Furthermore, as the law is created by a superior being, there must be some reason to accept that the law should be upheld. Although it might seem absurd, in this day and age to accept an appeal to God as a reason to accept an argument, Locke also appeals to an idea of natural reason which is inherent in all of us. Co-operation with the natural law ensures our survival, and so it is unreasonable to think anyone would object to it. Hence, each person is not only equally bound to abide by the natural law, but each person is also equally bound to ensure that others abide by it. "In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule other than that of reason" (Locke 10), and so offers himself up to be punished by those who have not. The equality of every man within a state of nature also means that each individual who has not broken the natural law has the right to punish the offender. The severity of that punishment should be adequate not only to ensure the perpetrator does not commit the same act again, but also act as a deterrent for other would-be criminals to do something similar. From this reasoning, it is believed that mankind will be preserved and live in a state of relative security. By Locke's own admission, this right to punish, may seem like "a very strange doctrine" (10), but without it, the law of the land would only apply to those who are naturally resident within it. Foreigners who have not consented to domestic legal policy would be free to act under their own standards and so the freedoms and safety of native habitants would be in doubt. It must then be a natural law that governs all mankind, regardless of cultural influences, that allows countries to make examples of those who commit offences on home soil. The conclusion of this argument is that by accepting the right to punishment and retaliation, rights relating to security, in particular property may be protected. It is quite plain to see why the threat of taking away someone else's property impacts significantly on someone else's right to life and liberty. We all need shelter in order to survive and someone without this basic necessity may be driven to violence to take it from someone who has, particularly if they are seen to have more than enough to cater for their base requirements. The right to property, and the right to protect it, is therefore, at least in Locke's view as important as the more fundamental rights of life and freedom. Although in a state of nature, land and resources are generally plentiful, the invention of money enables man to possess more than is necessary and so becomes greedy. As those with a greater amount of wealth begin to have greater access to land and property, the amount of available land necessarily decreases. Thus, the divisions that occur caused by envy and suspicion between those who have much and those who have little, threaten the peaceful state that was once enjoyed by humans. Even if we are to accept Locke's account of the state of nature as reason for believing there is justification for punishment of an individual who harms another, it does not necessarily mean that we should submit to a common political body. Surely under this account it would be sufficient for the victim to seek retribution in which way they saw fit This response poses two main problems, which Locke addresses. The first is that of the case of murder. If someone's life is taken by another, it becomes impossible for the victim to seek any kind of retribution. But there are more ways to violate a person's natural rights than to take their life and a further area of potential conflict, is in the interpretation of natural law. To what extent should one be punished for violating the law and how is one supposed to know when an offence has been committed It is quite plausible that a man may be more affected by a crime against his friend or relative than he would be a stranger, and so the compulsion to punish more severely would be strong "and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow" (Locke 12). The remedy for this is the implementation of a civil government, whose duty is to ensure a state of war does not persist amongst the citizens it protects. The underlying purpose of a civil government is "for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as possible" (Locke 47). If we are to accept an absolute ruler rather than a civil government, each citizen runs the risk of being enslaved by he who establishes absolute rule. This enslavement threatens preservation by undermining one's natural liberty as there is nothing to ensure that the absolute ruler will not steal property or even take a life. This instability instantly places the ruler and the ruled in a state of potential war "it being understood as a declaration of a design upon his life" (14) Thus, those who have no united body politic, supported by those it has authority over, are still in a state of perfect nature and every citizen being, "where there is no other, judge for himself and executioner" (Locke 47). By joining a civil society, with a civil government, each citizen renounces its right to take action against a fellow human for an injustice, instead passing those powers onto the elected arbitrator, who has the power to do so. In addition, the civil government has the authority to make the laws deciding how harshly any transgressors may be punished. In this way, it is felt that a notion of justice may be identified and implemented. This is the original "legislative and executive power of civil society" (Locke 47). It is significant that Locke places importance on the existence of a civil rather than an absolute government. This, to some extent remedies the conflict between personal freedom and submitting to authority. A civil government, unlike an absolute ruler, can be held to account if they do not act within the interests of its subjects. The power to legislate and execute also means that a person's private property is, in some way, protected. This feeling of security helps to ensure and individual's right to life and liberty in that knowledge of the law and its punishment for breaking it, will act as a deterrent for potential offenders. But more than that, it also benefits a lawbreaker by ensuring they suffer a punishment worthy of the crime. It would seem most unfair if a person caught stealing a loaf of bread was killed by the owner as a result; the act of killing seems a greater crime than the act of stealing. In this instance the criminal is still entitled to his right to life, which is protected under the laws of the civil government. There are limits to the legislative powers of the civil government, however. The aim of the government can only be to preserve the rights of its citizens "and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the subjects" (Locke 71). It can only act upon decided laws, which have been discussed and determined by "promulgated judges" (Locke 71) and can never take away any part of a man's property without his consent (Locke 73). This is key to accepting the authority of a governing body, as without it, there is little reason to recognize their authority over that of an absolute ruler, which, by Locke's returns the citizens to a state of nature and thus the threat of a state of war. In addition, those who are entrusted with the powers of legislation are also subject to that same legislation, thus the temptation of creating laws which are biased or prejudiced might be avoided. Locke's account of the origin and purpose of government are not too far removed from the reasons we use to justify modern democratic governments. The acceptance of Locke's account hinges on acceding to his version of a state of nature and the moving from the descriptive to the normative. In this instance the latter is fundamental. Only by understanding human nature may one implement a practical rule of thumb. As for Locke's state of nature, there are justified observations. It is true that the existence of money has lead to a scarcity of property in some cases, and that scarcity has lead to conflict. The existence of common political governance, does to a degree, ensure not only do we have a right to and a right to protect our private property, which is fundamental to the preservation of our lives and liberty, but it means we can pursue a life we choose knowing that there will be recompense if our rights are violated. The limits of legislative power Locke places on government also help to safeguard against corruption, though this is much harder to enforce as governed societies get bigger. Although personal autonomy may seem like the perfect ideal, in times of wealth and vice, the submission to common legislative, judicial and executive bodies certainly seems like the lesser evil. Works Cited Locke, John Second Treatise of Government Ed. CB Macpherson, Hackett Publishing, 1980. Read More