John Lockes Natural Rights in The Second Treatise of Government - Essay Example

?John Locke’s Natural Rights in The Second Treatise of Government In The Second Treatise of Government, by John Locke (1679-1682), Locke presents hisviews on the natural rights of man. These rights encompass one’s rights to one’s body/person, right of survival or preservation, the right to property, the right to labour, the right to freedom, the right to punishment, the right to society and the right to self-defence in war. “Locke developed central devices for political theory …a theory of natural law” (Bailey 2008, p. 252). The state of nature, to which Locke refers, describes two things: the condition of mankind before the establishment of civil government and the condition of mankind before the introduction of formal legislation to ensure societal order. Locke deduces that since laws governs nature, and God ordains laws where man is subject to the Divine then the laws govern mankind. It must be noted that since these rights exist outside of the body politic or civil society; they are natural or inherent to man’s being. These rights are inalienable and are equally applied. Forming the basis of the penal system, the justice system, the welfare system, the military system, the economy and the government as a whole, these rights comprise the foundation for both individual and society at large. In the natural state, the rights of man are equal and evenly distributed to all humanity’s members. Sovereignty cannot be invested in a singular individual where all are made equal. In his treatise, Locke insists on “equality of men by nature…as so evident in itself, and beyond all question” (Locke 1980). Locke declares his stand for the equality of the rights of all men, and their sameness before the law and before God. Locke drafts this document to stress the implications of equality for society. In the day of Locke, men are grappling with rife, social inequalities which lead to disgruntled lower classes and corrupt upper classes. Factors are forwarded to justify superiority of one class and the inferiority of another. The principles of the right to equality are rooted in the acknowledgement that all men are naturally created equal, and abide in “a state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank” (Locke 1980). Man is a rational being equipped with mental capacities, moral virtue, feelings, impulses or physical make-up. Hence Locke endorses the view of unbiased, impartial, and equal treatment of all. The respect of the right to equality would avert discrimination, social class (elitism), and exclusion. These egalitarian views are drafted in the treatise to regulate more equal consideration and distribution of power among all people. (Bailey 2008, p. 78) comments that “the role of equal rights in Locke is precisely to ensure that the only permissible departures from the state of nature are those that respect these rights.” The mere fact that one has been integrated into the human race is entitlement to equality and dignity. The understanding that all men are equal is also predicated on the premise that there are no natural claims of superiority, and one may not act at will in the exercise of government. All men are naturally and legitimately a part of the society and must be regarded as a full member. Each man also must exercise his natural right to survival based on the principles of The Second Treatise of Government. Locke states that, “being once born, (men) have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence” (Locke 1980). As such he deserves to gain access those things which would facilitate survival such as food, clothing and shelter. Here, Locke discusses man’s fundamental physiological needs as pointed out in Maslow’s pyramid of needs. Life is a precious gift and so man has the ability to protect and preserve his life. Without due attention to man’s inborn prerogative to survival, the degradation of the value of human life is an ill that proceed. Although man is endowed with a powerful mind that distinguishes him from the animal species, he retains instincts which aid him in self-preservation in the rat race of life. In the animal kingdom, the strongest survive. Owing to the sanctity of life, each man has to respect another’s life and not hinder attempts at survival. Man, a human beast, survives because of innate ability and primal instincts. The right to survive is validated by the built-in, biological mechanisms to ensure survival and the continuation of the species. In Second Treatise of Government, Locke affirms man’s natural right to procreate and establish a family. Apart from beasts who act upon instinct, Locke realises man’s natural need and right to have sexual relations calling it the “right in one another's bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance” (Locke 1980). When male and female come together in union as man and wife, he regards the conjugal unity as a right of mankind. In the natural world, the male's nature is to dominate and possess the female. Likewise, in Locke, the man has a right to engage the society of woman and raise a family. He has a sexual nature that would compel him to seek the companionship of the opposite sex. Locke also acknowledges man’s passion in which he is propelled by the heat of sexual desire, stirring within man the desire to copulate. Biologically speaking, man is a member of the animal kingdom; therefore his proclivity to animal desires is expected. In the animal domain, males usually compete for females and in the human realm, the same thing occurs. However the differences between the man’s sexual relationship and the beast’s lie in the commitment, longevity, monogamy and the objectives. Locke observes that “For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation” (Locke 1980). Sexual intercourse is an act that binds man and woman in a solemn tie and aids in procreation. After procreation, the young are reared and nurtured until adulthood. It is at this point that Locke pinpoints that it is the family unit that comprises the nucleus of society. Man has a natural right to his own body, the unlimited entitlement to and use of his person according to Locke’s The Second Treatise. The body is an entity that must remain fully the possession of the self in view of the fact that “every man has a property in his own person” (Locke 1980). Another does not have the right in the natural state to employ force or assert ownership. Locke also recognizes man’s right to labour. Man’s right to labour ties in with his right to survival. Labour is one of the crucially necessary activities required to occupy man’s time on earth. Knowing the high worth of labour, Locke declares that “the labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his” (Locke 1980). In the natural realm, man’s enterprising efforts to sustain himself through labour cannot be lawfully tampered with nor taken away. Work is an activity which dignifies and ennobles man. Land and sea contain several exploitable resources into which man can tap for a livelihood. Locke quotes the passage in the Bible alluding to man’s unique right to live by the sweat of his brow. The value of labour is appreciated so long as there remains the demand in supply. Contingent on man’s right to labour is the right to enjoy the fruits of his labour. In the civil society, labour is the underpinning of the economy of a people. Man’s participation in labour enables the production of essential commodities and entitles him to ownership of property for the rewards of his labour become his possession. According to Locke, the right to property is derived from the right to one’s body and the right to work. When man transfers raw material from nature and reduces it to a useable form from which he may profit, the rights to the product belong justly to him for “whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property” (Locke 1980). Seeing that the wages of work gradually constitute property, then one can also reason that the body is the mechanism which facilitates man’s labour and fulfils his objective to own and inherit. Ownership is a basic and natural right of man premised on honest, painstaking effort. Because of man’s right to property, he also has the consequent right to protect it from defacement and theft. The said proprietor’s legitimate claims to property … Locke posits that man has a natural and immutable right to freedom. Freedom is a critical component of man’s nature. Locke urges that all men aught to naturally enjoy “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man” (Locke 1980). Man’s natural right to freedom is dependent on the freedom of will. If man’s natural freedoms are not adhered to, enslavement invariably enters the picture with the man’s will being broken and set at nought. The captor would then be at liberty to dominate and exploit the human being. The denial of freedom converts the 'sacred into the profane' for his personhood degenerates to a thing to be captured and possessed. Slavery is founded upon the idea that the imprisoned is inferior, and so dehumanization and captivity become easy and an almost natural step. Man is not savage and he should not be coerced into servitude or imposed with needless suffering. When man’s worth is not fully comprehended, brutality and demonization are the outcomes. The law is obliged to protect all men. Man’s title to freedom endows him with rights and privileges to enjoy liberty. Slavery is an institution which reacts against human nature. Family ties, natural rights, justice and human dignity are trodden underfoot and give way to the cruel will of the subjugator. The right of nature, identified as jus naturale is the liberty that each man possesses to protect himself from imminent danger or the right to self preservation. The law of nature or lex naturalis is the law which upholds man’s right to protects the self in the case of aggression or anything that threatens his own existence. Locke accords to all men the “right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible” (Locke 1980). Further, Locke impresses the right to enter a state of war in which enmity arises that endangers man’s life. Here one discerns that man’s own security and safety are priority. Because of man’s contentious nature, peace is unattainable and war inevitable. To have dominion over other men he counts as an intrinsic property of man’s nature. Three causes of conflict which stirs up war are competition in the struggle for survival, diffidence, and glory. Clearly, war is the natural product of man’s belligerence and his antagonism with both man and beast. War is indispensable because it is a process through which civilization is born and develops: the absorption of the weaker and the development of a stronger body is the aftermath of war. Locke knows that war is to be anticipated because through the law of self-preservation, the attacked retains the right to fight back in self-defence. The right to fight is supported by man’s right to survival. In the state of nature, one must expect violence from men and beast, so that the privilege belongs to man to repel these assaults to his person. Once this menace to man’s well-being emerges, it is natural to reciprocate by mounting a defence. Locke corroborates the point by connecting a justified right to fight, advocating a just war as the means to attaining the ends of peace and order. The concept of the natural right to war for Locke is hinged on the overarching need of a legitimate authority to “preserve peace, protect the innocent, repulse invasion or reclaim territory" (Gregorian 2004, p. 43). When applied in society, the right to war extends to the establishment and mobilisation of the military which defends and protects the state. In the natural sphere, Locke espouses the view that man also has the title to judge his own where there is an infraction or offence committed against him. The right of men to be “judges in their own case,” Locke admits would scarcely encourage fairness (Locke 1980) for  he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it” (Locke 1980). He realises the advantage of civil government which necessitates that the judge adopt a reasonable, unbiased and disinterested stance toward the case at stake. At the same time, judgement in one’s own case would disallow errors of judgement in determining the cases of others. The very fact that even in nature a judge exists proves that man has an unimpeachable right to legal recourse in matter of an injustice. Justice appears to demonstrate the natural desire to seek reparation so that judges must necessarily preside over and decide a case. In the state of nature, Locke agrees that man has a fundamental right to inflict and receive just punishment. These penalties as dictated by the law must be reasonable. To Locke’s mind, everyone has the right to claim reparation, dispense justice and obtain correction. The wronged or “he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men a particular right to seek reparation from him that has done it (Locke 1980). The existence of punishment presupposes that there is a law or an ethical standard of right and wrong. Indeed, Locke actually supports this point for “similarly Locke says where there is no law there is no freedom because a rational law is a direction to man’s proper interests” (Bailey 2008, p. 358). Punishment is a control in human behaviour which can either be retributive, or deterrent in its effect. The primary objective of punishment is to preserve law and order in society. It is a method implemented and harnessed by an authority to keep a level of stability in society. The administration of retributive justice by man or deity is a concept as old as time immemorial and has been engraved into the DNA make-up of man. Locke knows that even in the state of nature, that mandated form of justice or vengeance for contraventions of the law. Retributive punishment is the brand of punishment retaliatory in nature. Retribution dictates that offenders of the law must face a penalty for their attack on another. The purpose of retribution is to have the guilty party suffer for a wrong committed and “provides limits that the punishment fit the crime” (Natarajan 2010, p.75). The letter of the law imposes a cost on the part of the transgressor of the law in which the ancient retributive principle of “an eye for an eye” comes into effect. Retributive punishment places the fault of the crime squarely on the shoulders of the offender. In other words, punishment has to be tantamount to the offense. Taken from the Mosaic law, this law signifies that in penal law, offenders’ punishment has to be weighed alongside the crime. The penal system is to a large extent governed by this rule because of religious history and transferred values. Also, the natural reactive attitudes inherent to man compel him to reciprocate an injury done. Standards are set so that the judge of the infringement sentences the offender in proportion to the breach committed. Locke cites deterrence is his natural punitive theory which reinforces the ethical principle of setting an example for the wider community; hence, practical application underlines deterrence’s principle which is highly instructive. The deterrence theory’s premise is that “people will engage in criminal and deviant activities if they do not fear…punishment…(the punishment) will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like.” (Locke 1980). Seeing the magnitude of the punishment, it is the intent of punishment to deter others from committing the crime. As a result of imposing stiff penalties, the expectation is that neither others nor the offender himself would repeat the offence In the natural world, Locke asserts that man has the right to reject absolute or arbitrary control over his person. Oppression, enslavement and absolute control are not natural conditions and so, man is titled to resist and throw off these yokes. An attempt at complete and unrestrained control over another is deemed unnatural and unlawful thus “he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life” (Locke 1980). Absolute and arbitrary control does not favour even-handed justice, but favours despotism, and self-love. Undisputed determinations by one man encourage the miscarriage of justice and peace. The right of oppression goes only to the victor of the strife and lies in sheer force. In the same vein, the tyrant would appropriate to himself the law of the right of conquest to hold sway over other people and seize property. Intrinsic to this condition of absolute control is the lack of accountability which is an essential ingredient in justice and freedom. Locke denounces absolute rule and oppression as prejudicial to the liberty of man for “nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave” (Locke 1980). Most times, imposed control over one’s person goes against the man’s sacred will. When an excess of power is vested in one person, the repercussions are baneful. Absolute power leads to the abuse of it with impunity shielding the oppressor. In nature, man's free-will nature and inalienable rights are not to be denied. The oppressor’s injustices and adamant refusal to act for man’s good disqualifies him to rule for he encroaches on the rights of his peers. Natural power imbalances are a threat to harmony of man both in the natural and civil societies. If man’s natural right to reject total control is not regarded, then one dominant entity would persist in holding a monopoly over resources so that the weaker and the oppressed become slave to arbitrary desires and devices. Locke’s Second Treatise of Government is a historic essay of man’s vital and inalienable human rights in the natural world. Locke theorises that these rights are innate within every human being and forwards this argument to cement his view that with the implementation of civil government, the government’s first obligation is to not disregard these sacred, individual rights. These rights underscore man’s relationship to himself and with others. The right to survival, the right to self-preservation, the right to labour, the right to property, the right to companionship and sexual relations, the right to freedom, the right to resist oppression and the right to justice, the right to punishment comprise man’s natural rights. Locke’s influence in his treatise has been far-reaching. (Doernberg 2008, p. 58) notes that “the (US Constitution) framers established their government in frank Lockean style upon the consent of the governed.” Consequently, this document sets in place the framework of both the American and English systems of government. References: Bailey, A. Brennan, S. Kymlicka, W (2008) The Broadview anthology of social and political thought: volume one, Broadview Press, Toronto. Doernberg, DL (2008). "We the people": John Locke, collective, constitutional rights, and standing to challenge government action, Pace Law Faculty Publications, 51. Gregorian, V (2004) Islam: a mosaic, not a monolith. Brookings Institution Press, New York. Locke, J. (1980) Second treatise of government, Hackett Publishing, Indiana. Natarajan, M. (2010). International crime and justice, “Punishment philosophies and practices around the World,” by G. Newman, Cambridge University Press, New York. Oakley, F (2005) Natural law, laws of nature, natural rights: continuity and discontinuity in the history of ideas, Continuum International Publishing Group, New York. Read More