Page 123 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Unit 7: John Locke

it was in the case of Hobbes’ theory. Moreover, the people chose to specify the powers of the Notes
government. Locke astutely observed that people at any given time would not surrender all their
powers to an outside body, including their own government. Once the government was instituted,
it would be assessed periodically and its actions scrutinized meticulously.
Locke also realized the impossibility of unanimity in every action, for that would imply a return
to the state of nature:
And thus every Man, by consenting with others to make one Body Politick under one
Government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that Society, to submit
to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original
Compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one Society, would signify nothing,
and be no Compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties, than he was in before in
the state of Nature (Locke ibid: 376).
People accepted (and were bound by majority rule) decisions, even if they personally disagreed.
Though people granted the legislative power to make law, they always retained a residual right to
judge whether its performance was satisfactory and in accordance with the natural laws and take
remedial steps if necessary. Hence, Locke was able to justify resistance to unjust political power.
Consent and Political Obligation
The Second Treatise tried to explain the basis of legitimate government and the reason why free
individuals acquiesced to be subject to an external authority. The answer was simple: namely, free
individuals expressed their consent willingly and voluntarily through a contract agreed freely to.
As to why they agreed to enter into a civil society and establish a government, Locke explained it
with reference to the state of nature.
The state of nature was not only a state of perfect freedom, but also one of perfect equality.
Individuals had an equal right to natural freedom. As a true Christian, Locke believed that God
created human beings and Earth. Every one had the equal right to share the earth and its fruits,
since they were God’s creations. Moreover, individuals were subject to the laws of nature. Each
had the right to enforce the law and punish the transgressors. In the absence of common legislative,
executive and judicial powers in the state of nature, there were disputes on the interpretation of
law. In the absence of a common and acceptable arbitrary power, there were disturbances for it
became a case of one’s word against that of others. Locke, unlike Hobbes, characterized human
beings as naturally social and pacific, but did not rule out the possibility of disputes among them.
Hobbes used the state of nature to describe the lives of persons without political authority, whereas
for Locke the state of nature:
... is the condition in which God himself places all men in the world, prior to the lives
which they live and the societies which are fashioned by the living of these lives. What
is designed to show is not what men are like but rather what rights and duties they
have as the creatures of God. Their most fundamental right and duty is to judge how
the God who has created them requires them to live in the world which he has also
created. His requirement for all men in the state of nature is that they live according to
the law of nature. Through the exercise of his reason every man has the ability to
grasp the content of this law.
Like Descartes, Locke optimistically saw each individual as capable of seeking the truth for one’s
self. For Locke, these most basic truths began from the claim that individuals were essentially
conscious beings in a world of physical matter, with which they were constantly interacting. It
was through these interactions, of which the most important were our perceptions of the world,
that we acquired knowledge or probable beliefs about it. An individual’s conscious experience
was at the root of having ideas. Locke rejected innate ideas as sources of knowledge. This implied
a rejection of moral and religious truths. He never doubted the possibility of everyone reaching it.

LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY 117