Page 124 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes He questioned the existence of universal moral precepts, considering these differed throughout
the world. He thought it was difficult to find any one moral rule that was universally subscribed
to. Here, Locke’s views were similar to the ones advanced by the Sophists. However, Locke did
not pursue his moral views, though he used these arguments to underwrite his political views.
For Locke, men were by nature free, politically equal, creatures of God subject to the laws of
nature, and possessors of an executive power of the laws of nature; they became subjects of
political authority only by their consent. Without consent there was no political Community.
Locke spoke of two kinds of consent: express or direct, and tacit consent. Express consent was an
explicit commitment given at the time when the commonwealth was instituted. It was interesting
that the fundamental Constitution of Carolina which Locke helped to draft, provided for a
declaration of one’s allegiance to the commonwealth when an individual came of age. In case
there was no provision for explicit consent, people’s obligation could be gauged by their tacit
consent. There were two problems with regard to tacit consent. One was to define tacit consent,
and the other was to determine how far it was binding. Locke provided tacit consent in response
to Filmer’s critique of the contract doctrine. Filmer pointed out that the idea of one contract that
was irrevocable meant that subsequent generations were bound by the act of their ancestors
making it indistinguishable from the argument of the royalists that God had granted Adam the
right to rule which was bequeathed to Adam’s heirs. Tacit consent, according to Locke, was
demonstrated when:
... everyman, that has any possession or enjoyment of any part of the dominions of any
government, does thereby give his tacit consent, and is as far forth obliged to obedience
to the laws of that government, during such enjoyment, as any one under it; whether
this his possession be of land, to him and his heirs forever, or a lodging only for a
week; or whether it be barely travelling freely on the highway; and in effect, it reaches
as far as the very being of any one within the territories of that government.
The obligation to obey the government would depend on the fact that public power was used for
“peace, safety and public good of the people”. Moreover, individuals would not yield to the
government more power than what they actually possess in the state of nature, which meant that
“there cannot be an absolute arbitrary power over their lives and fortunes which are as much
possible to be preserved”. Lockeian individuals were not committed to unconditional obligation.
There was a rational and limited agreement which assured obedience for the preservation and
enhancement of life, liberty and property. The validity of the contract would depend on the
continuation of these benefits.
Locke also asserted categorically that governments could be altered, amended, changed or dissolved
legitimately, and listed five occasions when this was possible. These were as follows.
1. Whenever such a prince or single person established his own arbitrary will in the place of laws.
2. When the prince hindered the legislature from assembling in its due time or from acting freely,
pursuant to those ends for which it was constituted.
3. When by the arbitrary power of the prince, the elections and the ways of elections were altered
without the consent, and contrary to the common interests of the people.
4. The delivery of the people into the subjection of foreign power, either by the prince or by the
legislature.
5. The person who had the supreme executive power neglected laws already enacted, and could
not be executed.
Locke insisted that all true states were established by consent. He assumed that a minority would
consent in all things to rule by the majority. Through initial and continuing consent, Locke met the
critique of Filmer by insisting that legitimate power combined power with right. A government
could not be arbitrary: it was bound by the general laws which were public and not subject to

118 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY