Second Treatise on Government by Locke - Essay Example

Analyze the Text Introduction The target text for analysis in this paper is Second Treatise on Government (1688) by Locke and only covers chapters I to VI. As indicated this is analysis paper and does not summarize the work for the author of Second Treatise on Government. The analytical criteria in this case is related to the number of points the author attempts to defend with reference to political science theories. The target text emphasizes on the aspect of co-existence between man and man. Within the society, it is the jurisdiction of natural law that every individual should get along with each other without anyone invading each other’s space. However, as the natural law demands that each individual respect each other’s space and choices, it is also the requirement of the law that the choice individuals must be within acceptable limits that adhere to ethical and moral expectations. Given the application of the natural law, this analysis paper takes into consideration the theories of blind obedience, antislavery theory, moral truth, natural law ethical theory, and the double effect principle. One exclusion criterion in this paper involves the separation of ethics, morals, and religion. The analysis is philosophical and does not consider ethics and morals as part of religious expectations when considering natural law. Theoretical Framework and Analysis Blind Obedience In the target text, Second Treatise on Government, the author is observed arguing that the fact that the natural law exists, it is not upon the duty of anyone to be authoritative over one another. Arguing from the creation story from the Holy Bible, the author points that God is the creator of all the universe and controls how humans relate and therefore it not under anyone’s responsibility that humans have to behave in a specific manner dictated by laws and authority. However, when considering the evolution of human ethics and morals, governance developments take into consideration the author’s points that authorities include entities that have the authority and capability of punishing others if found on the wrong side of the law. Law in this case is not natural but takes into consideration the natural law. Since natural law considers everyone equal and having the right to live without being disturbed, the civil law on the other hand aims at controlling how people or members of the society interact with each other as well as punishing those who take the natural law’s rights form others. With the possibility of imprisonment, execution, and hard labor; it is the order of the authorities through constituted law to ensure that things are run in a certain orderly manner where individuals are rather interested in living in harmony than facing the arm of the law (Debate.org, para. 1-2). Through these laws and enforcement mechanisms designed to control how people take up instruction and heed to live with each other in harmony that blind obedience refutes the role of natural law in the protection of humans against humans. In this case, the author’s point of view that natural law is enforced through civil law such as constitutions and other enforcement agencies is flawed considering that natural law does not apply within the authoritative environment. If no man is supposed to be superior to one another, governments elected to power through democratic means are placed in office based on majority shared opinion. Majority shared opinion may entail all views that different people may have on a given subject based purely on personal judgment. Shared opinion does not mean that the course of action taken is the right action. However, if authorities have the power to enforce any type of law immediately after entering office without the consideration of the voters’ points of view, it is irrefutable to argue that civil governance influences fear which leads to blind obedience to laws and rules set by authorities under the disguise that theirs is the role to protect the natural law. Natural Law Second Treatise on Government, chapters 1 through 6, show how different perspectives can be taken into consideration when identifying how humans must or should co-exist with one another. The author’s argument on natural law is that God created everything on earth and placed the first man as the controller of the environment (Locke, p. 349). However, from giving the first man the authority to rule over material possessions, it is not indicated anywhere that man was supposed to rule over one another. Considering that there is not determined method of telling who among Adam’s children could be his heir, then it is valid to argue that none of the Adam’s children could have authority over another (Irving, para. 1-6). However, when considering the number of factors influencing how families should relate, it is seen that Adam’s children may not have had the privileges of ruling over one another as they were all at the same level as family members. Thus, if this was the case, Adam being a father figure is naturally placed as the head of the family whom everyone else should respect (Locke, p. 370; sec. 76). Compared to blind obedience, Adam’s children could have been influenced by their age, status in the family such that they obeyed their father and mother without considering the level of equality the author associated with the natural law as it is. In this case, considering natural law and ignoring ethics and morals, it is not the duty of Adam’s children to be heirs and neither is their father’s status worth demanding a hierarchical order (Locke, p. 349). Anyone can be anybody in any situation regardless of whether it is a matter of taking responsibility or being careless. However, Natural Law as described in Second Treatise on Government requires everyone to be free of each other in terms of disturbance and authority but also insists in the consideration of the type of choices one makes (Locke, pp. 350-351). Choices that affect others to the level of making them uncomfortable or causing harm to others are unacceptable under the natural law. However, the natural selection that one entity can assume authority over another, whether within a family setting or not, is not justified without the consideration of morals designed in the same manner as the case of majority-shared opinion to control what can be considered ethical, moral, right, and/or wrong (George, pp. 331). Antislavery Theory The anti-slavery theory borrows from ethical, moral, and natural law. The anti-slavery theory is argued to have developed from Darwin’s antislavery views (Desmond, Moore, Sullivan, para. 2-6). Although the contemporary society considers it unethical to burden fellowman with hard labor without compensation, slavery has historically been legal without policies set to manage how slaves could be handled and how many one master could have within any size of land or labor site. Based on the legality or unquestioned possession of slaves made Darwin to withdraw from slavery matters in his philosophical texts (Desmond, Moore, Sullivan, para. 2-6). However, when considering his definition of a morals and ethics as the rightfully accepted code of conduct drawing from the societal norms, it is clear that slavery cannot be argued for or against by considering only ethics and morals only. For instance, if ethics and morals are developed based on the norms of the society, it is through the same society that different sub-societies that do not consider the same type or norms to be universally accepted. Thus, the society that accepted that slavery was illegal was not in sync with another that thought slavery was legal or right (Locke, 351). For instance, during the slavery days of the Southern States in the US, the Northern States thought that the practice was wrong and unethical based on human rights. Human rights of living comfortable lives and away from physical, mental, or involuntary bondage can be placed under ethical considerations while those of preserving one’s life, dignity, and personality can be categorized under moral considerations. Based on the target text’s point of view that slavery is partly a contribution to breaking the code in the observation of the natural law, it is valid to consider this view by employing the antislavery theory. The anti-slavery theory dictates that no man should be inferior to another. Additionally, the theory also supports the point that everyone has as much right of living any other and it is the duty of every man to protect that right to the fellow men. However, the definition of a slave and the state of slavery may differ from one context to another, it is universally accepted that slavery is having a master controlling the survival of a subject. Based on physiological and physical wellbeing of a slave, it is agreeable with the author’s point of view that no one should be responsible for the death of another and if a slaver if driven to taking his/her life, the master is responsible for murder. Based on morals and ethics, natural law requires individuals to respect each other’s space, a natural gift a slave does not get from his master, making the anti-slavery standpoint in the target text valid (George, pp. 332). Moral Truth Moral truth is a concept developed by critics of Aquinas whose argument towards Aquinas point of view that moral obligations can be better understood or assessed by considering a man standing alone on an island (Summa Theologiae, q. 95). Aquinas argues that human behavior is not natural and therefore it should not be assessed or measured by considering how much of natural law’s expectations one is meeting. However, Aquinas argues that under the assumption that human behavior is natural because it responds to nature, and again that human behavior is unnatural and therefore it cannot be considered natural. The natural and unnatural human behavior is a concept that collides with how ethics are designed and how they are identified as necessary (Summa Theologiae, q. 95). For example, consider the man stranded on an island as earlier pointed out, without the expectation of being obligated to be ethical, nature calls and other nature-induced needs, can influence how the individual responds. In this case, if natural law requires people to not disturb one another or not to be immoral, then under Aquinas’ argument, the decisions humans make are unnatural because at times they may influence disturbance (Summa Theologiae, q. 95; a. 1). But on the other hand, the fact that nature can influence human behavior shows that humans respond to nature and they are not proactive to change nature. Hence, if one commits a crime because circumstances pushed him/her to do so, the act is as justified as it is unjustified. Killing is a constitutionally documented crime and dying is a natural outcome. If it natural to expect death after life, it through nature that this outcome is inevitable and the act of killing is justified under natural law if only it serves the purpose of obeying natural courses. However, on the other hand, the act of killing is unjustified as it takes the opportunity of life of one man and makes it’s the responsibility of the murderer to serve time or meet the full sentence for the crime. Under Second Treatise on Government’s perspective on who is morally right at punishing another, it is observed that a murderer can be killed as a way of preventing further killings or as a way of setting example to others that may have the intentions of killing. However, one problem with the book’s view is that the author does not show how naturally right a magistrate might be condemning a killer to be executed. Natural Law Ethical Theory The author’s arguments that there are morals and ethics that apply to one group of people and not the other questions the validity and applicability of the natural according to the author’s definition of the natural law. The author argues that the natural expects everyone to expect nothing from another especially in the face of authority. However, the author considers the civil governments’ perspectives in enforcing natural law. For example, the author mentions that magistrates can condemn murderers to be executed to set examples or to prevent the criminal from committing further crime. This argument shows that the natural law has a few errors if assessed from civil government’s perspective. Under one considering, a decision can be made to solve a problem while at the same time managing the effect. On the other consideration, an effect can be targeted such that the benefits achieved rely more on the evil committed. For instance, killing all murder suspects without trial to reduce murder cases is a case involving target effect of reducing murder but accomplished through the evil of killing. In this case, ethical dilemmas are assessed through the consideration of the natural ethical theory. The theory is concerned with identifying the moral obligation when making decisions especially in situations where every outcome affects the moral concern equally. It is a moral concern of a judge to decide whether to sentence a murderer to death or to not and risk the death of a victim by the same murderer (Locke, p. 351; sec. 8). Under these circumstances, that require the moral question of deciding whether the taking away a life to save another or sparing one to risk the loss of another, can be justified under natural law. Double Effect Principle The double effect principle is a concept used in decision making where equally moral problems present themselves regardless of the decision one makes. As indicated within the target text, Second Treatise on Government, that people should co-exist without cohesion and in harmony, it is the worry of the adherers of natural war that through natural law, civil law is futile and irrelevant if wrong doers can be excused of their deeds based on the invalidation of authority under natural law. Thus, if civil governments aim at protecting human rights as generally expected under natural law, their role is as irrelevant as dictated under natural law that no one should be above another to dictate how they should behavior or make decisions (Irving, para. 16). Conclusion Second Treatise on Government’s chapter 1 through 6 (1688) offers insight it to the author’s interpretation of natural law and how civil governments are illegitimate. The author’s points of view include the consideration of God the creator, human beings as equal, authority to be irrelevant under natural law, and moral dilemmas encompassed within the judicial environment. Although the author’s arguments in most of the cases consider one side at a time and invite contradiction, the anti-slavery perspective matched with anti-slavery theory which considers natural law as the guide. The author’s point of view on how authority gives power to some individuals and subjects others under their mercy, tends to invalidate the specific role played by natural law and how natural law can play out if civil governments did not have a mechanism to enforce the law. It is also observed that the author considers freedom as a measure of natural law but also recognizes that individuals need one another to co-exist in harmony. However, this analysis found out that norms, ethics, and morals are community-based and developed under the same environment. Thus, as much as the society may consider natural law to be its code of survival, civil governments play important role of dealing with the double effect principle to sustain natural law as much as possible. Works Cited Debate.Org. Blind obedience is a threat to morality. Accessed online on April 22, 2015 from http://www.debate.org/debates/Blind-obedience-is-a-threat-to-morality/1/ Desmond Adrian, Moore James, and Sullivan Terry. Darwins Sacred Cause. Socialist Review, 2009. Accessed online on April 22, 2015 from http://socialistreview.org.uk/334/anti-slavery-theory George, Robert. Natural Law and Positive Law,” in Robert P. George (ed.), The Autonomy of Law: Essays on Legal Positivism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996, pp. 321-334 Irving, Diane. Abortion: Correct Application of Natural Law Theory. Accessed online on April 22, 2015 from http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_08natlaw.html Locke Read. The Second Treatise on Government. Meeting #14, 1688; pp. 347-370 Summa Theologiae. Was it useful for laws to be framed by men? Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 95, a.1 Read More