Moral Philosophy - Essay Example

? Moral Philosophy Table of Contents Question 4 3 Question 5 Works Cited 7 Question 4 Locke shows in Part V of the Second Treatise that in essence,the right to property springs from natural law, and is ordained in so many words by God himself. He begins by saying that all of the earth after all is given to men so that he may find in it his home and his sustenance, and in so far that he enjoys all the fruits of the earth without his interventions he shares all of the earth with his fellow men as common property. Then he goes on to say that be that as it may, the work of the hands of men in his own capacity is and the fruits of his own labors must be his own property. The distinction is that whatever it is that he fashions out of the common lot in nature, removed from that which nature provides in common with all other men, is his. This is the spring of the notion of property as it is envisioned by Locke. It is something inalienable to private persons in their own capacity, as something that is in the natural state of things too. It is the labor that he adds to the work that he undertakes on nature and its constituents that creates ownership and the notion of property. The labor is his, and so are its fruits and immediate consequences (Locke): 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. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others (Locke) Locke further explains that this is so, without the common explicit consent of all men, as something that is self-evident. For instance he notes that even if let us say a natural water spring is the property of all in common with everyone, yet the labor of the man who makes use of his own strength to draw water from the spring and places some water into his own pitcher makes that pitcher of water his own property. This is so, because otherwise he would die of thirst before he got the explicit assent of everyone. On the other hand, by the same argument, whatever else that exceeds the needs of a particular man by his own labor, exceeding his enjoyment, is beyond his property, and this excess is therefore something that goes back in essence to the common realm, as the property of all. Whatever is in excess that can spoil, is beyond what man can enjoy, and is therefore beyond his own capacity to own. This is also according to Locke part and parcel of what he considers the self-evident bounds of one man's property (Locke). This is not a capitalistic notion, though it lends itself well to capitalistic lines of thinking, because in the main what Locke is saying is that there ought to be a limit to what a man can own beyond his needs, and that the bounds are there to make sure that man does not own anything beyond what he can cultivate presumably with his own labor. This applies too to the idea that there is enough to go around for everyone, if everyone works hard to secure his own needs and enjoyment with his own labors rather than the labors of others (Locke). Question 1 Machiavelli in Chapter 8 makes an example of the Sicilian known as Agathocles to say that although the man rose through the military ranks by his own cunning and skill, yet he is not someone who can be considered as possessing virtu. Yes he achieved his success without the help of anybody, and that in itself is admirable, but he did that by cunning and by betraying friends among others. He killed and he deceived, he had no mercy and no religion, and he had no faith. Machiavelli implies that the man of virtu achieves glory too, and Agathocles may have gained the world so to speak, but he falls short of virtu and his victory and success lacks the imprint of glory. Machiavelli notes that though this man had a great mind and that his personal qualities allowed him to come out on top of the many difficulties and hardships that he encountered on his way to the top, he is not to be regarded in the same vein as the other excellent human beings that Machiavelli holds up as fine examples of men possessing of virtu. His wicked acts were too numerous and blatant, he was cruel and barbarous in his methods to get to the top, and this excludes him from the company of the men that Machiavelli deems as the most excellent (Machiavelli). To see why Machiavelli considered Agathocles to be someone who fell from the standard of virtu, one can look at the example that he made out of Cesare Borgia, who he saw as having gained his power not through his own labor and his own work setting up the foundations of his own power, but via the work of his father and the power and influence that his father gained, which Cesare Borgia then inherited. Machiavelli notes that here the problem is that in general, the man who does not lay the foundations of his power when he is on the rise will have problems laying those foundations once he is in power, and so his hold on power is tenuous at best, and certainly lacking in traction. To be sure Cesare Borgia did all that he could, and mustered all of his wisdom and power such as those that he possessed as a man of some virtue, but all that effort was for naught. One can see from a comparison of the two that first, Agathocles seems to be in a better position to hold on to power because he got his power on his own merits and with his own work, laying the foundations of that power with ruthlessness, deceit, barbarity, cunning, and wickedness notwithstanding. Cesare Borgia, on the other hand, inherited his power from his father and did none of the foundational work that Agathocles did, although one can infer from the passages on Cesare Borgia that he did try his best to secure his hold on power with wisdom, and implicitly, with more humanity than Agathocles. The differences are circumstantial in part, and in part in the way the two men employed different means to secure power, one humane and wisely, the other in an inhuman fashion (Machiavelli). Works Cited Machiavelli, Nicolo. “The Prince. Chapter 7 and 8”. Constitution.org. n.d. Web. 15 October 20113. < http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince07.htm> Locke, John. “John Locke, Second Treatise of Government (1690)”. Harvard University's Justice with Michael Sandel. 2011. Web. 15 October 2013. Read More