The Role of Property and Religion in the Political Writings of John Locke - Essay Example

John Locke (1632-1704) has been credited with many of the founding principles upon which the Declaration of Independence was based including conceptsof property and religion and the role of government on these in the lives of the individuals governed. He was a British philosopher, doctor and Oxford academic who worked closely with officials including Lord Ashley in coordinating the establishment of colonies and other governmental functions at a time when the English power structure was consistently shifting.1 Influenced by such earlier philosophers as Descartes and Hobbes, unhappy with his education in the style of Aristotle and tutored under the natural principles of Wilkins, Locke developed a decidedly anti-authoritarian philosophy in his writings, indicating that government should remove itself from the natural pursuit of knowledge undertaken by an individual.2 “For the individual, Locke wants each of us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply accept the opinion of authorities or be subject to superstition.”3 While much of his writing in The Limits of Human Understanding focused on the nature of knowledge and how one should best pursue the truth, it was here that Locke developed his ideas of empiricism, which differed fundamentally from the three main philosophical camps of the period – namely the idealists, the materialists and the dualists – as well as illustrated his idea of the tabula rasa, the blank slate, condition into which he claimed all mankind is born.4 His other major works, the Two Treatises of Government, particularly the Second Treatise, progressed from this point to enumerate the role of government as fundamentally a power to protect property provided by the popular consent of those governed.5 Several of these ideas propounded by Locke in his description of the general character of natural man and his relationship to God as well as the description of the perfect government as a protector of property were reiterated in the development of the American Declaration of Independence as a justification on the part of the colonists for the revolutionary actions they were undertaking. In The Limits of Human Understanding, Locke works to illuminate his thoughts regarding the nature of knowledge, how one might undergo an honest search for the truth and, from there, to a discussion of the nature of God and the course of true religion. In describing knowledge, Locke says it is comprised of internal and external experience which is synthesized in our minds creating the end result of knowledge. “These two, I say, viz. external material things, as the objects of SENSATION, and the operations of our own minds within, as the objects of REFLECTION, are to me the only originals from whence all our ideas take their beginnings …”6 In describing this process, he claims humans have three main categories of knowledge – intuitive knowledge based on clear mental insight which is the most trustworthy of the various forms of knowledge, demonstrative knowledge which is almost as reliable as intuitive knowledge but is derived from the strict reasoning based on intuitive insight, and sensitive knowledge, which is classified as knowledge gained from the perception of material things outside ourselves.7 Yet this knowledge can never be complete in Locke’s estimation because we can never understand the true essence of humanity. Instead, the “scope of human knowledge, of certainty, is ‘very short and scanty,’ says Locke. With regard to most things we care about, God ‘has afforded us only the twilight … of Probability.’ This limitation, he says, was given us ‘to check our over-confidence and presumption,’ to make us ‘by every day’s experience … sensible of our short-sightedness and liableness to error.”8 Probability is further broken down into types, the highest of which is assurance which concerns general agreements about how things interact as it has been witnessed by a high degree of individuals, agreed upon by all the people and in every age as far as one can discover. Assurance is followed on the probability scale by confidence, which concerns particulars that have been witnessed by others and are consistent with things that are usually true.9 Other types of probability are beyond our perception, but Locke believed that if we were cautious in our reasoning, we would eventually come to right judgments. However, these ideas concerning knowledge were not all-inclusive in cases such as faith and the concept of God. Within the framework of his own philosophy on thought, Locke demonstrated to his satisfaction the existence of God through the evidence of the internal processes that occur in most humans. “In Book II he reduced moral good and evil to pleasure and pain which -- as reward and punishment -- come to us from some lawgiver; thus they point to a source outside the mind. But his ground for maintaining the demonstrative character of morality is that moral ideas are ‘mixed modes,’ and therefore mental products, so that their ‘precise real essence ... may be perfectly known.’”10 With the presence of God as evidenced by our ability to feel pain and pleasure in accordance with doing good or evil, Locke took things a step further by saying that it is reasonable for us to believe in a God in those situations in which we cannot know or understand fully, but still must act on something. “Such knowledge must be supplemented by faith if we are to fulfill our divine destiny.”11 Finally, he defined faith as being “nothing but a firm assent of the mind: which, if it be regulated, as is our duty, cannot be afforded to anything but upon good reason; and so cannot be opposite to it. He that believes without having any reason for believing, may be in love with his own fancies; but neither seeks truth as he ought, nor pays the obedience due to his maker …”12 Thus, it is not only our moral duty, but an inherent nature that pushes us to discover what is right and good as it relates to our own experiences. Because faith is based upon our own experiences, follows Locke’s reasoning, one person’s faith can never be precisely the same as another’s and, at the same time, it is precisely orthodox to each individual: “… all, of the orthodoxy of their faith — for everyone is orthodox to himself — these things, and all others of this nature, are much rather marks of men striving for power and empire over one another than of the Church of Christ. Let anyone have never so true a claim to all these things, yet if he be destitute of charity, meekness, and good-will in general towards all mankind, even to those that are not Christians, he is certainly yet short of being a true Christian himself.”13 It was for this reason that he espoused the ideas of tolerance regarding the religious dressings of faiths other than his own. “Lockes position was ‘adiaphorist’: he held that the particulars of worship and church government were not prescribed by Christ and so were matters for human ordinance.”14 In addition, he pointed out the irrationality behind holy wars and inquisitions: “Faith works ‘not by force, but by love.’ It is impossible to ‘persecute, torment, destroy, and kill other men upon pretence of religion… out of friendship or kindness toward them.’15 Therefore, it was wrong for the courts, government or any others to prescribe the religion of the nation, taking that choice out of the hands of the individual. The only exception he made in this rule was that the practice of religious rites must not threaten the civil order.16 These concepts can be easily traced in the thoughts processes of the American colonists as they crept toward revolution. “In order to end the abuse of power by church and state Locke advocates a separation between the two institutions for the good of all people.”17 More than just a flippant comment as it might be thought of in modern times, Locke was deadly earnest when he remarked, “I esteem it above all things necessary to distinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion and to settle the just bounds that lie between the one and the other.”18 Within Locke’s view, the only reason anyone would want to integrate both church and state would be to open the avenues for the abuse of power. In founding the new nation, Thomas Jefferson, working on a bill for his own home state of Virginia, drafted the first document to expressly address the connection between church and state based on the ideas of John Locke. “Taking this idea from Locke, Jefferson proposed that Virginia end all tax support of religion and recognize the natural right of all persons to believe as they wish.”19 The bill didn’t pass right away, but a reintroduction of it by James Madison while Jefferson was serving as ambassador to France saw acceptance and the first time in history that a government had acted to legally separate church and state. It was three years later, in 1789, when Madison proposed several amendments to the new Constitution that would further define the federal government’s restrictions as far as it pertained to religious beliefs. The very first of these amendments begins with “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”20 Despite this, by the time Jefferson himself became president in 1801, the separation of church and state remained an issue of paperwork in many of the states, where laws regarding who could vote (only Christians in good standing), establishing religious holidays and holy days and enforcing taxes to support the Christian church were still enforced. When Jefferson was criticized for refusing to proclaim a national day of prayer, he responded with a quote from the first amendment and “remarked that this establishment clause built ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”21 Similarly, Locke’s ideas regarding the proper role of government as a purely protective agent established by the people and for the people became founding principles of the new nation. These ideas were primarily espoused in his Two Treatises of Civil Government, especially in the second one. During Locke’s time, the prevailing attitude regarding national leadership at its most liberal fell along lines of an irrevocable contract between the populace and the ruler. Locke’s argument took this concept one step further by suggesting that this leadership was, indeed, revocable. According to Locke, primitive society provided an environment in which “each individual is perfectly equal with every other, and all have the absolute liberty to act as they will, without interference from any other.”22 Only a mutual faculty for human reasoning keeps this society together as each member holds the right and responsibility to punish those who violate the natural law. Within this society, all property is common property, refusing no one the right to obtain subsistence for themselves and their family. However, the right to private property, through the process of a man extending his labor upon objects and crops produced, introduced the need to protect said property from the harmful effects of others who might wish to avail themselves of the use of it. This process further evolved to include the use of monetary systems to denote efforts expended that cannot be held in such means as property or stored items. “But the creation of a monetary system requires an agreement among distinct individuals on the artificial ‘value’ frozen in what is, in itself, nothing more than a bit of ‘colored metal.’ This need for agreement, in turn, gives rise to the social order.”23 As this social order develops, there are certain issues individuals are constrained to relinquish for the benefit of the overall good, primarily the right of enforcement, which is typically turned over to the state. In the absence of a common magistrate, Locke holds that each individual has the right to defend their property as they see fit within the bounds of God-given reason and justice. It is to avoid these inconveniences of constant vigilance that Locke says men are predisposed to join a society and therefore voluntarily relinquish the powers of self-regulation.24 Through this social organization, Locke argues the power of the government is provided by the people and therefore is not above the laws of the people. Because it was an agent for the people, government should be restricted to working to enforce laws that are developed for the good of the people and should not involve itself with matters that did not directly and materially relate to the general welfare of the population.25 Within this context, Locke says it is important to always remember that the right of enforcement is not by nature the right of the ruler. “This is a right which each individual brings to society in his own person. Therefore, society does not create the right of property and, except within certain limits, cannot justly regulate it. At least in part, both society and civil government exist to protect the prior right to private property.”26 Political power, then, consists of the powers to establish laws and define punishments for the violation of those laws, enforcing the laws that have been established and to defend the populace from any kind of foreign attack. As has been mentioned earlier, no form of religious implications are involved in government, nor did Locke believe government should have any say in matters that did not directly threaten the health and welfare of others within the commonwealth. When government overstepped these bounds, Locke had a ready answer for it born out of his personal experience in the several transitions of government he witnessed in England just prior to the Glorious Revolution. In discussing the responsibility of the populace to adhere to the laws thus created out of this voluntary societal system, Locke points out that there are occasionally instances in which the law and the person’s moral conscience find themselves in disagreement. “In matters indifferent (i.e., things neither commanded nor forbidden by God in the bible) a Christian must obey the ruler actively, by actually doing what he commands. But if the ruler forbids something God has commanded, or commands something God has forbidden, then the Christian must obey God actively.”27 When the government begins to act in a way counter to the natural law and instead of protecting citizens begins to abuse them, Locke argues that “… the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of any body.”28 Therefore, if the government neglects to provide the protection it was established to provide or itself violates the natural rights of its citizens, Locke argues the people are justified in their pursuit to remove the ruler or overthrow the government, by force if necessary. “Revolution, in other words, is sometimes justified.”29 Through these arguments, it can be seen that Locke vehemently defended the right of the people to resist against unjust rulership and equally opposed the prevalent attitude of ruling by Divine Right. From this social order, both natural and within the context of a defined society, Locke defines each individual as having the right to “life, liberty and estate.”30 These words have an almost identical mirror in the beginning paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence written nearly 70 years later: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”31 The ways in which Locke outlined the rights of individuals, the natural state of man and the natural acquisition of property as well as the correct way in which ruling parties, whether they be parliaments or monarchies, should best rule over the people and the right of the people to revolt against an unjust ruler are almost an outline for the declaration that Thomas Jefferson wrote up in defiance of King George III. Much of the document enumerates the various ways in which the king has failed to uphold his portion of the bargain inherent in the people’s providing him with the right to rule based upon the principles of rulership enumerated by Locke.32 Because he drew heavily from materials already presented in the Magna Carta and the Virginia Declaration of Rights, both of which were strongly influenced by Locke’s ideas, Jefferson’s resulting Declaration echoes many of Locke’s premises, including the idea that the people not only have a right, but an obligation, to revolt against the unnatural reign of King George under the existing conditions because the natural rights of men living in the colonies were being exploited rather than protected.33 “The human right in property was meant by Locke and understood by the Framers of the Constitution to be the fundamental liberty … It was only necessary to organize [government] to protect property and life (ones life was his property), and once organized other freedoms had to be protected against governments power.”34 Without John Locke’s clearly articulated ideas regarding the rights of the populace to revolt against an unjust government founded on principles of natural order and appropriate reasoning, the founding documents of the United States of America might look quite different today. It was Locke’s ideas regarding free thought that led him to conclude we should all have a tolerance toward the expression of other religions, if for no other reason than our own reasoning argues against such wanton destruction in the name of ‘saving’ heathens. This idea led to the development of the necessity to separate church and state as a means of allowing each to focus on what was fundamentally important to it and to protect the people from gross neglect and abuse of an overconcentration of power. By separating the concept of God from the concept of earthly rule, Locke was then able to continue his discourse to enumerate the natural law of man that claims each individual has the basic right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property (translated to happiness in the American documents) and that the role of government is merely to protect these rights. When the role of government ceases to protect these rights and instead begins to infringe upon them, Locke, and the founding fathers of the United States, felt it was the right and the responsibility of the people to revolt and establish a new social order. Endnotes 1 Uzgalis, William. (2001). “John Locke.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from . 2 Uzgalis, (2001). 3 Uzgalis, (2001). 4 Landry, Peter. (1997). “John Locke.” Biographies. Retrieved February 3 2006 from . 5 Landry, (1997). 6 Locke, John. (1959) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Vol.1, New York: Dover, pp.121-125. 7 Garrett, Jan. (February 12 2004). “John Locke on Reason and Faith: The 17th Century Background of American Unitarianism.” Western Kentucky University. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/rsn&fth.htm> 8 Garrett, (2004). 9 Garrett, (2004). 10 “John Locke: 1632-1704.” (2005). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm>. 11 “John Locke: 1632-1704,” (2005). 12 Locke, (1959). 13 Locke, John. (1689, n.d.). “A Letter Concerning Toleration.” Constitution Society. Tr. William Popple. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm>. 14 Goldie, Mark. (November 25 2001). “John Locke: Philosopher, Political Writer, Physician.” The Literary Encyclopedia. University of Cambridge: The Literary Dictionary Company. February 3 2006 from . 15 Vincent, Richard. (2004). “An Unholy Alliance.” TheoCentric. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.theocentric.com/theoarchives/000233.html> 16 Goldie, (2001). 17 Vincent, (2004). 18 Menendez, Albert and Doerr, Ed. (September/October 1999). “That Wall.” Americans for Religious Liberty. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.arlinc.org/articles/article_thatwall.html> 19 Constitutional Rights Foundation. (Fall 1997). “Separating Church and State.” Bill of Rights in Action. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria13_4.html> 20 "The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. (Ratified December 15, 1791). Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1> 21 Constitutional Rights Foundation, (1997). 22 Kemerling, Garth. (October 27 2001). “Locke: Social Order.” Philosophy Pages. Retrieved February 3 2006 from 23 Kemerling, (2001). 24 Moseley, Alexander. (2005). “The Political Philosophy of John Locke.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/locke-po.htm#SH5b> 25 Constant, Ronald Terry. (1995). “John Locke in the Glorious Revolution.” Constant site. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.constantsite.com/essays/history/JohnLocke.shtml> 26 Dolhenty, Jonathan. (2003). “John Locke: A Philosopher of Freedom and Natural Rights.” The Radical Academy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://radicalacademy.com/lockebio.htm> 27 Kilkullen, R.J. (1996). “Locke: Two Treatises.” Macquarie University. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6710.html> 28 Locke, John. (1960). Two Treaties of Government. Cambridge University Press, p. 448. 29 Rogers, G.A.J. (2000). “John Locke.” The Dictionary of Seventeenth-Century British Philosophers. 2 Vols. Thoemmes Press. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/locke.htm> 30 Locke, (1960). 31 “Declaration of Independence.” (1776). Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html> 32 Stephens, George. (2006). “John Locke: His American and Carolinian Legacy.” John Locke Foundation. Retrieved February 3 2006 from 33 Sterner, C. Douglas. (1999). “Thomas Jefferson Writes the Declaration of Independence.” Home of Heroes. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/birth/1bc2.html> 34 Stephens, (2006). References Constant, Ronald Terry. (1995). “John Locke in the Glorious Revolution.” Constant site. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.constantsite.com/essays/history/JohnLocke.shtml> Constitutional Rights Foundation. (Fall 1997). “Separating Church and State.” Bill of Rights in Action. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria13_4.html> "The Constitution of the United States," Amendment 1, Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. (Ratified December 15, 1791). Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1> “Declaration of Independence.” (1776). Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html> Dolhenty, Jonathan. (2003). “John Locke: A Philosopher of Freedom and Natural Rights.” The Radical Academy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://radicalacademy.com/lockebio.htm> Garrett, Jan. (February 12 2004). “John Locke on Reason and Faith: The 17th Century Background of American Unitarianism.” Western Kentucky University. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/rsn&fth.htm> Goldie, Mark. (November 25 2001). “John Locke: Philosopher, Political Writer, Physician.” The Literary Encyclopedia. University of Cambridge: The Literary Dictionary Company. February 3 2006 from . “John Locke: 1632-1704.” (2005). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm>. Kemerling, Garth. (October 27 2001). “Locke: Social Order.” Philosophy Pages. Retrieved February 3 2006 from Kilkullen, R.J. (1996). “Locke: Two Treatises.” Macquarie University. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y6710.html> Landry, Peter. (1997). “John Locke.” Biographies. Retrieved February 3 2006 from . Locke, John. (1689, n.d.). “A Letter Concerning Toleration.” Constitution Society. Tr. William Popple. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm>. Locke, John. (1959) An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Vol.1, New York: Dover, pp.121-125. < http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/locke.html> Locke, John. (1960). Two Treaties of Government. Cambridge University Press, p. 448. Menendez, Albert and Doerr, Ed. (September/October 1999). “That Wall.” Americans for Religious Liberty. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.arlinc.org/articles/article_thatwall.html> Moseley, Alexander. (2005). “The Political Philosophy of John Locke.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/locke-po.htm#SH5b> Rogers, G.A.J. (2000). “John Locke.” The Dictionary of Seventeenth-Century British Philosophers. 2 Vols. Thoemmes Press. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/locke.htm> Stephens, George. (2006). “John Locke: His American and Carolinian Legacy.” John Locke Foundation. Retrieved February 3 2006 from Sterner, C. Douglas. (1999). “Thomas Jefferson Writes the Declaration of Independence.” Home of Heroes. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.homeofheroes.com/hallofheroes/1st_floor/birth/1bc2.html> Uzgalis, William. (2001). “John Locke.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved February 3 2006 from . Vincent, Richard. (2004). “An Unholy Alliance.” TheoCentric. Retrieved February 3 2006 from < http://www.theocentric.com/theoarchives/000233.html> Read More