# Locke's State of Nature
## August 24th, 2020
- Some quick reminders:
- The discussion board for this week is open! I'd encourage you to post early and often; don't feel like you have to wait until Wednesday!
- The Weekly response assignment is also up, with the new standard format
- For Wednesday, read just John Locke's Chapter 5 - which is just 1 chapter, but an important one
- What we're covering today:
- Foundational vs dialectical philosophy
- Rationalism vs empiricism
- "Locke is kind of playing both sides of the debate here in his work"
- Locke's foundation for liberal democracy
- Exegesis of the text (breakout rooms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- So, let's talk about the first of those bullet points: what's the difference between Foundational and Dialectical philosophy?
- John Locke is writing in the late 17th century, an interesting time in England's history right after the Glorious Revolution
- Even earlier in the century, though, the French philosopher Rene Descartes came on the scene and basically argued that philosophy needed a do-over; he was raised in a Scholastic tradition that he saw as convoluted and overgrown, and he thought he needed to rebuild a new foundation for philosophy
- This contrasted with the European tradition of philosophy at the time, which was DIALECTIC: "thinking through things," and trying to explain why obvious things happen, critiquing that explanation, and then gradually gaining greater clarity through dialogue
- The FOUNDATIONAL approach tries to ignore what's obvious, and instead tries to focus on what's clear, reasoning that THAT'S where the truth lies rather than what "seems" obvious to us
- Descartes went full-tilt into the foundational approach, using a method we now call "hyperbolic doubt:" if it can't be PROVEN, it gets swept away, and can't be a foundational truth
- Descartes ultimately lands on his foundation: the fact "I think," and tries to build everything from there
- This is also a RATIONALISTIC approach: starting with some given true ideas, and then deriving other truths from that using deductive logic
- Locke, though, took a different approach: building off of other people like Francis Bacon, he argued that the SENSES were our most reliable faculty, and that we should use our senses to gain data, and then derive truth via induction (rather than deduction)
- This approach, which Locke advocated in "An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding," became known as EMPIRICISM, and became highly influential in Britain (and, eventually, the continent)
- In the 2nd Treatise, though, Locke actually argues more from a rationalistic base than an empiricist one, trying to come up with fundamental ideas and then working deductively
- So, Locke is happy to jump between the two camps, whereas later philosophers like George Berkeley and David Hume were more consistently empiricist
- This *might* be because Locke was trying to appeal to his patrons with the "2nd Treatise," for political reasons, but we're not sure
- *Brief aside about epistemology in rationalism vs empiricism*
- "To make a long story short, Immanuel Kant came on the scene in the late 19th century and basically thought, after reading David Hume, that rationalism is empty but empiricism is blind, in a sense, and instead turned philosophy inwards on human consciousness - which, in my opinion, is a more productive direction"
- *Not sure I agree, but okay*
- Anyway, though, Locke is being a "foundational rationalist" in the 2nd Treatise - and he's trying to establish a legitimate basis for public authority
- Now, let's look at a passage that doesn't EXPLICITLY paint out Locke's foundational principles by itself, but connects to other things he talks about that do
- So, I want you to work in 2 steps:
- Look at the passage on your own (~5 minutes), connecting it to other passages and trying to interpret it
- "As I said, a lot of the work in this course is just between you and the book"
- Then, go to the breakout rooms and discuss those connections with other people for ~10 minutes to try and understand what Locke is getting at
- So, here's the passage: "Second Treatise on Government," Chapter 2, section 7, lines 1-7:
```
And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the Law of Nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the Execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby everyone has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation
```
- My things:
- The "state of nature" is defined in II.4, "a state of perfect freedom...as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature," without depending upon the will of any other person
- Basically, the state of nature is a state of freedom from everything EXCEPT the "law of nature"
- Locke also says in II.4 that this is a state of equality
- The "law of nature" Locke talks about in II.6:
- "..which is that law...that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions," grounding this right in their mutual and equal creation/ownership by God
- So, he may not harm anyone else "UNLESS it be to do justice on an offender" (i.e. one who breaks this law)
- So, in this passage, Locke is saying that "executing," or enforcing, this law is up to each individual, so that everyone has a right to punish anyone else who breaks this "law of nature" by infringing on someone else's rights
- Alright, let's come together as a class
- You can see in this passage that English spelling is pretty standardized, but punctuation is actually a bit different from modern English; it was still in the process of getting worked out
- State of nature is the state all people are in BEFORE societal arrangements - and is a "state of perfect freedom" to do what they want with themselves and their possessions "within the bounds of the law of nature"
- *aside that while Locke was himself a person of Christian faith, the Enlightenment tended towards secularism, and endorsed truths that could be discovered by human reason (even if many believed those truths were ultimately founded by God)*
- So, what makes this a foundational text is that Locke is claiming that people are FUNDAMENTALLY equal and still constrained by the "law of nature"
- This contrasts with Thomas Hobbes's earlier account of the state of nature, which was much more savage and horrific than Locke's account
- So, the LAW OF NATURE is fundamentally a moral law, saying that individuals have the right to not be harmed by another
- This is technically known as the "principle of non-maleficence"
- Locke believes that this equality and right of being free from harm is fundamental in human nature, and is what all other political authority must be grounded on
- Okay, we'll take this up next time and focus on one aspect of the law of nature that's especially important to Locke (and his patron, the Earl of Shaftesbury): the right of property. See you then!