Why Does Locke Believe That Slavery Violates Natural Law - Essay Example

Modern Philosophy Why does Locke believe that slavery violates natural law? How does such natural law differ from civil law? Locke believes that law of nature is a divine command and is not imposed by humans. In the state of nature the rights of the people are protected by natural laws; the divine commands. In the state of nature every body enjoys the equal status and is not equal in capacity but equal in rights. Hobbs had a view that in the state of nature there is no institution to decide the disputes of the people, so war is inevitable. But the state of war is refuted by Lockes. The “natural liberty” of man provides the freedom from the will or the legislative of man and is ruled by law of nature. Slavery is contrary to the law of nature as the man does not surrender his liberty when becoming the member of society. He is not coerced by any legislative authority since that legislative power in the “common wealth” is entrusted by the consent of the individual not by coercion or restraints of law and the legislative takes care of the trust of the people of the common wealth. “[Individual is] not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.”(1) (italics are of the writer) A man can not surrender his freedom to any arbitrary power for surrendering his freedom puts his life at stake .In that state he does not have “power of his own life” therefore by consent or by force he does not allow any absolute power to make him a slave. Though Locke confessed that in the past, (one must remember that empiricist eulogized the glory of past), in the Jews and in other nations people sold themselves (Locke is not ready to believe that they were made slaves instead he deliberately used the phrase “men did sell themselves”) to do the manual work. Locke says that it is evident that the person who sold himself voluntarily did not become a slave of some despot. Bertrand Russell suggests that this theory of the law of nature and the state of nature is clear but puzzling also. Locke is utilitarian in his ethics but in his thoughts he does not seem to think by following his own utilitarian ethics. His theory is confounded on the subject of good laws and bad laws. He is indebted to Bible for his parameters of ethics as to him moral rules are Divine rules so it is the law of nature to decide which action is good and which one is punishable. The great objection to the law of nature is that in the sate of nature there is no judge to decide the disputes of the people and a person has to defend his rights. To avoid this strife between the two or more the government is the remedy. But Locke says that the government or the civil society does not violate the natural laws and forming a government does not evade the state of nature rather it makes one body more prudent. (2) To wriggle with the theory of the divine right of the king the social contract philosopher came up with the theory of the contract and it had purely earthly origin. That was the only alternative to oppose the divine right of the king to rule. To avoid the tussles among people the government is formed to provide the environment where the people with their consent choose the authority to decide their disputes. The law of nature does not hold back the person to attack to protect the right of life or property. In the civil society the individual surrenders this right of attack only to the community or to the law. By giving the analogy of Conjugal society Locke sees no difference in the family and the government. The relationship of husband and wife ought to be lasting to procreate and then to bring up the siblings. The rights of parents and children are protected in a family, every body works for the welfare of others. In slave and master relationship no body transgress the rights of other the same is with the government. “Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political or civil society."(Italics are of the writer]. (3) Since no one is able to protect the right of every member of community, how does Fichte account for our right to be protected by others? Fichte in his Foundation of Natural Rights ascertains a fundamental principal of the political order to answer the questions of legitimacy and right. Such questions were already raised but were answered improperly by Hobbs, Locke and Rousseau. The fundamental assertion of the Foundation is that all individuals, irrespective of their social strata, possess natural rights, including the right to protect the body, property and the right to live. The main purpose of lawful political order is to safe guard the rights from intrusion by other people and by the state also. Fichte theory of principal of all rights maintains that every body is free in his sphere of action by following certain limitations. He has to protect the freedom of others too. Fichte realizes the fact that such generalization is hard to be realized since it does not answer where the limitations of freedom are to be drawn. To draw the limitations there must be a consensus among people to constitute a state that will provide and put into effect the sphere of their freedom. It means the rights of every person; bestowed upon by nature, can only be materialized in a state which is established on social contract; agreed upon by rational and free persons. It follows that the rights suggested by Fichte are not natural in a sense that they were followed and honoured in the past or could have existed if the congenial conditions persisted in some community prior to the set up of a political order. People are blessed with these natural rights in normative sense, which means, that these rights are necessary to realize the true nature of individual as free and rational persons. And this is only possible if self consciousness of individuals needs these rights to be realized. Fichte is indebted to Kant’s transcendental method in the Critique of Pure Reason for the strategy to realize the natural rights. The Foundation of Natural Rights probes into the congenial conditions where individual can achieve self-consciousness and it argues in the favour of rights and political justice which are prerequisite to constitute the above mentioned condition. To Fichte right is not a random human contrivance but an important and necessary idea which is incorporated in reason itself to provide an outlook of what a human society would be if the rights were realized fully. The social contract is not possible when two grieved parties lay claim to the same property and the other to decide rather it will be realized only when the two have the apprehensions that such conflicting claims may arise in future. So, to avoid such conflicts to arise again they agree to have a social contract. Fichet says that the will of every party to possess property is the private will of each party. For these private will is aimed at an object, they are then material will. Thus each person pledges all his possessions as a guarantee that he will be a productive and responsible member of the society and will surrender it if he does not become a responsible member of society and infringes upon the rights of others. (4) In Hegel’s description of mastery and slave, why does each relationship fail to be free? In Hegel’s famous master - slave dialectic when two self –consciousness confront each other, each thinks in terms of self about other. It is like each mirror reflects the other, but the reflecting itself is also reflected. This conflict goes on and only way to resolve the conflict is to fight; the winner becomes master and the loser become slave. To Hegel relationship of master and slave is prehistoric and this kind of self- consciousness is flawed and logic of such self-consciousness is self-persecuting, so it becomes archaic and superior form of self consciousness suppresses it , that superior self consciousness is cooperation in economic. Hegel says that since self consciousness is for itself so it exists for another also and it only exists when it is acknowledged. In the beginning the conflict of two self consciousnesses is proportioned, they are identical and to distinct one from the other is difficult. The torture starts each wants to a person of its own. It ends the symmetry and a- symmetrical relation is formed. Both want to dominate the other. The conflict starts. It is now required that symmetry should be shattered and consequent is one is recognized as master and the other becomes slave. (5) The problem is settled in a fight to die, one self consciousness is triumphed (lives) and the other is defeated (dies) .that is the only way to settle the opposition between two the equals, that is struggle of life and death. Freedom is only possible by putting one’s own life at stake. But the problem is if one self consciousness is killed by the other then dead consciousness is helpless. To become for another, self consciousness needs to be for itself. If one self consciousness kills the other self consciousness then it destroys the freedom of the self which kills the other one. It is abstract negation it does not come from consciousnesses, rather it suppress the other in such a way that the suppressed is preserved and resultantly one survives the suppression of its own self consciousness. In this battle one surrenders and the winner has the right to kill the looser but the winner realizes that it is all useless for the victor needs recognition of the victory. The winner does not kill the looser but make him a slave. One becomes an independent consciousness which is for itself and the loose becomes dependent and is for another. The winner is master and the looser is slave. Now the looser works for the winner, for master the desires could not be satisfied just by desiring but now all the master is to do is to order the slave and the desire is satiated. Slave like mirror reflects the master, but the master is such a mirror which reflects his/her own image. In this process the slave becomes stronger because the master has forgotten to work for himself. It makes the slave independent consciousness . This suggests that the master in the conflict of life and death was a coward since he never confronted death, whereas the slave did. The slave experienced the fear of death; it is absolute negativity, being for itself. By serving the master he gets rid off of his dependence on natural existence in all respects and he gets free by facing it or by working on it. Though the master still controls the slave but he is independent now. So the dialectic balances the relation between slave and master. It is the skill which gives independence to slave. (6) Give at least two arguments that one could plausibly make against extending free of speech, explain how Mill will answer each of them in chapter 2 On Liberty? In recent studies two theories have been extended to discuss the issue of freedom of speech; the theory of harm principal and the theory of offensive principal. Stanley Fish in his renowned book, “There is no such Thing as Free Speech-----and it is a good thing too.” says that free speech has no independent value but it has a political prize. (Fish). It is very important to note that the thing which makes life precious is the law to curb some actions of people. Therefore, some rules of behaviour are needed to be implemented by law or by opinion on a lot of conduct which is not the jurisdiction of law. (7) Propagating Nazism is not a welcome gesture and it is must to condemn it for it provokes hatred against Jews which is harmful for any society .Such action will cause a catastrophe on large scale so must be curbed. Mill also suggests exercising the power rightfully against the will of the member of the community for such actions which cause a great harm to the society. A great deal of debate is started to decide what Mill actually meant by harm to the society. It is very difficult to curb the free speech only because it causes harm to the rights of others. Mill gives the example of corn dealers. The corn dealers; causing a whole sale starvation must not be condemned before the angry mob, if restriction is not observed in such occasions it may bring a great disaster to the society. Danial Jacobson makes it more clear by saying that Mill demarcates the legitimate and illegitimate harms. The above example of propagating Nazism is illegitimate harm and a community must not tolerate it. But nudity on public places is tolerated, though with great distaste, for it is not that harmful for the society to cause a great commotion and anarchy. (8) The study of narcotics issue brings to our mind Mill’s concept of self regarding conducts and it seems in his vocabulary it is not a harmful action. Raz disagrees with him and says that life of an addict is vividly inferior keeping in view of the values; needed to sustain the liberal society. To restrict the addict does not infringe the liberty of individual. If we take into account the harm caused by drug use we find that such action should never be tolerated. The restriction on such actions is good for the well being of the individual also. Some people argue that drug abuse is an offensive act not a harmful one for the society. The other hold drug a great hindrance to the individual valuable life. The issue of pornography is also raised and many feminists believe that it is a harmful act and must be banned. Feminists argue that woman is degraded in pornography. The apologists of pornogrghy believe that it is not harmful act but no doubt it may offensive to some. It is a difficult issue to discuss in the context of On Liberty. Mill was a Victorian and Victorian morality did not allow to discuss such issues publicly, therefore, Mill might have taken it a harmful act or might have called a legitimate harm. The apologists suggest as the erotica books should not be banned. It can be avoided by the people who are against by not reading the book; same is with the film which can be avoided by not watching it. But Raz says that liberty of an individual is subjected to the culture of the individual (Raz) if culturally it is considered harmful then the opinion of banning such stuff should be honored. Actually, Mill wanted a community where individual should have the opportunity to cultivate his well being and work for the social progress. Mill’s theory of infallibility pestered the individual to seek knowledge and to avoid dogmatism. Dogmatism is the really obstacle for any society to progress. He strongly believed that ages were also not infallible, means, there is no permanent value of truth to cling rather seeking of new avenues must be the aim of individual. Giving an opportunity to an individual was to found a community which is liberal and accommodative and suppression of majority does not suppress the curiosity of an individual. Some people misconstrue that Mill advocates such liberty of individual as follows no hindrances but in our study we find him offering restrictions on some actions of an individual which proves harmful for the community in general. According to Smith, what is that “prompts the generous on all occasions, and the mean upon many, to sacrifice their own interests to the greater interest of others (Smith). Would Mill argue that this force should or should not be fostered? Explain your answer. Adam Smith was basically a professor of ethics, but is known as economist to the world in general . Amartya Sen is of the view that usually Smith is misappropriately cinsidered to be championing self-interest instead of prudence and later day smithians oftenly cited the famous Smith’s passage of the butcher and the brewer to substantiate their view point.. Smith in this passage says that the self interest of the butcher and the bewer are the incentives for both of them as they are not interested for the necessaties of people but are only interested in their advantage. (9) Smith in his “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” explains his stance by giving us an example of the misery of earth quake victims of Chine and altruism of the the people of Europe after getting the news of the plight of the victims of earth quake. Smith suggests that in the beginning the person from Europe would feel sorry for the unfortunates he would also reflect on the impermanance of life and the “vanity of all the labours of man, which could thus be annihilated in a moment.” (Smith). He further suggests that he might think about the economic effects of the calamity on Europe. After reflecting on the plight of the victims and the business affairs of Europe he would forget all to indulge in his rotuine life and with the passage of time will forget the victims. He makes a point that human nature is selfish in general. He poses a question that when human nature is selfish what makes our active principles often so generous and so noble? Agreeed human nature is selfish we are always concerned about ourselves than to be concerned for other men but what is innate in us which “prompt” for generous actions on all occassions to sacrifice our self interests ? Smith opins that it is not “the spark of benevolance” which is innate in us rather it is reason, conscience, principle; the man witth in which is the great judge of our conduct which prompt us for generous actions on all occassions.It is that judge which makes us realize real littleness of ourselves and natural self love can be mended only by this impartial spectaotor. The impartial spectator shows us the goodness of generosity and the incongratuity of injustice. Mill believed like Benthem that our conduct is already determined and our actions are motivated with the belief that our certain conducts lead us to our own good, which he calls the greatest one.Our character and beliefs determine our conduct. So, to achieve the greatest good we can improve and coorect our belief and character and to Mill that is the motivating factor of free will. The ethical principle of his theory is that actions are right when they promote the happiness of all concerned and the actions are wrong when they promote unhappiness. Mill prefers higher pleasures which are social and generous pleasures based on culitivted feelings and intellect. He also suggests to go for those actions which cause happiness for long run. In these views Mill seems very close to Adam Smith who calls the action which brings the happiness for a generous action. Conclusion: The focal point of our study was to brows through the works of philosopher who tried to understand the question of the freedom of an individual. Locke thinks that in the state of nature people lived amicably by following the law of nature. He believes that society does not curtail the freedom of an individual, it helps to have an arbitrator to decide the conflicts of possession of the two aggrieved person. Locke’s emphasis on the possessions and the conflict arising from the possessions manifests the aspirations of the middle class. Fichte suggests that the rational of social contract was the realization of the right of the will of others and then honouring the will of property. His emphasis is also on the possessions and the individual who is not a responsible member becomes non-entity in the society. In the study of Hegel we tried to understand his dialectic of master and slave relation. Hegel point view is of a mystic. In Hindu religion we have the identical concept of it-self and self for others. Hegel emphasizes on the enrichment of the it-self which helps the slave to dominate the master. Last but not the least; our focus was the study of On Liberty, the bible of modern age and comparative study of Mill and Smith. In the study we found Mill restricting the free action of an individual by demarcating legitimate and illegitimate harmful actions. In the study of Smith we find that impartial spectator is the judge to judge our selfish acts notwithstanding the fact that human nature is self. Mill also approves the generous action which is generated by cultivation of intellect and on the principle of the greatest good which is to consider of the action which bring the happiness for us for long period of time and that is the happiness of all concerned not of an individual alone. . Works Cited 1- Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. New York: The Macmillan, 1956 2- Russell, Bertrand. The History of Western Philosophy.London: Routledge, 1993 3- Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. New York: The Macmillan, 1956 4- Fichte.J.Foundation of Natural Rights.Ed.Neuhouser Frederick. Trans.Michael Baur. London; Cambridge University Press, 2000 5-Hegel, George, Wilhelm.Lecture on Philosophy of Sprit: Oxford University Press.USA, 2007 6-- Russell, Bertrand. Analogy. Urbana, IL: IL University of Illinois Press, 1970 7-- Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty.London: Oxford University Press, 1963 8--Fish, S.There is no Such Thing as Free Speech. London: Oxford University Press, 1994 9- Sen. Amartya. On Ethics and Economics. New Delhi: oxford University Press, 1987. Read More